The Assembly met at 10.30 am (Mr Speaker in the Chair).
Members observed two minutes’ silence.

Telecommunications Policy

Mr Speaker: I have received notice from the Minister of Enterprise, Trade and Investment that he wishes to make a statement on telecommunications.

Sir Reg Empey: I welcome the opportunity to address Members on the key infrastructural matter of telecommunications. Telecommunications is central to economic development, as Members have repeatedly drawn to my attention, especially those from rural areas. It is also key to the knowledge-based, science-driven innovation dynamic. It has a strong social dimension and is crucial to addressing the digital divide. Much is happening nationally and regionally in Scotland, Wales, the English regional development agencies and the Republic to develop telecommunications policy and to integrate it in a broader economic development strategy.
It is important that Members be up to speed on all those developments, especially the response in Northern Ireland. Accordingly, I shall take three steps to set a framework for discussion. First, I shall outline the key parameters of the telecommunications issue and the complex legal policy and economic dimensions involved in addressing it. Secondly, I shall show the position of Northern Ireland in relation to telecommunications provision as outlined in the Mason Communications Report, which I placed in the Library early in December. Finally, I shall outline the action that is currently in train to advance telecoms policy and strategy in Northern Ireland and current and proposed initiatives.
I will now deal with the key parameters. Telecommunications has interesting similarities to, and differences from, energy. Unlike energy, telecommunications is neither devolved nor regulated regionally; it is a reserved issue that is regulated nationally.
However, like energy it is privatised, independently regulated and confronts the challenge of the very small market in Northern Ireland, which, in particular, tests us in attracting private sector investment and promoting competition. Also, like energy, access to telecommunications is vital both commercially and domestically, so, like energy, it is a major infrastructure issue with very specialist applications.
Just as there are different fuel and energy sources, such as oil, gas, coal, lignite, and renewables, there are very different telecoms technologies with different applications and opportunities — for example, fibre, copper, wireless, mobile and satellite technologies. Many of those technologies are either at a relatively early stage of development or are still maturing, so it is an industry with exponential technological development.
The past 18 months have been a turbulent time for the sector; the industry has gone from rapid expansion to severe downturn and a scaling back of planned growth. In Northern Ireland we have first-hand experience of the impact of that downturn. The major implications of these factors are: the need to develop policy in a national context, in collaboration not only with the Department of Trade and Industry and the e-Envoy but also with the different and competing interests in the private sector and with the independent regulator; the need to ensure that in that context Northern Ireland has as much flexibility as possible to develop telecoms strategy in the interests of this region and to ensure that we keep up with Scotland, Wales, the English regional development agencies and the Republic; and the need to ensure that our actions are compatible with EU competition and state aid rules.
Accordingly, I ensured that Northern Ireland was represented fully on the e-Minister’s stakeholders group, which reported to the Prime Minister at the end of November. I met both the e-Commerce Minister and the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, and received assurances that we can develop distinctive policy in Northern Ireland so long as there are no EU complications and no additional funding implications for the Northern Ireland block. My officials have made links with Scotland and Wales to ensure complementarity with them. Officials also have very close links with the Department of Public Enterprise in the Republic, since on this issue there is a potentially strong North/South dimension in the evolution of telecoms policy, and North/South activity may well be important in the context of INTERREG III.
Picking up on the key recommendations in the Mason Communications benchmarking study, and following discussions with the local stakeholders, my Department has developed a broad strategic approach to implementing the strong emphasis on telecoms in the Programme for Government. I will summarise the Northern Ireland position as outlined in the Mason Communications report. This study compared Northern Ireland’s current infrastructure with the Republic, Great Britain and selected US, European and East Asian exemplars.
One of the main points identified in the study was that Northern Ireland’s backbone network, which is predominantly fibre-based, is on a par with international best practice. It gives us a strong telecommunications base, comparable to that in the Republic of Ireland and the other UK regions. It also means that broadband telecommunications using private leased lines are available readily across Northern Ireland. Companies such as Stream International and GEM have built their businesses through broadband telecommunications.
Other companies not in the information and communication technology (ICT) sector, such as Ulster Carpet Mills, are working more effectively in the global marketplace using broadband, and companies such as Shorts and Nortel routinely use videoconferencing to communicate with their parent companies in Canada.
OFTEL regulates the prices that the incumbent operator can charge for a range of telecoms products and services, including leased lines. However, I recognise that the level of these costs means that they are often not appropriate for small and medium-sized companies, which form the bulk of our business profile in Northern Ireland.
As Members have been keen to point out to me on several occasions, the key issue in telecoms provision is local access, linking customers to the new and developing high-speed, high-volume services and, especially, at a cost that companies feel they can justify.
In this regard we face exactly the same challenges as every other region in the UK and the European Union.
The benchmarking in the Mason Communications study highlights that Northern Ireland is on a par with most other regions and, crucially, that it faces the same intimidating challenge: to encourage the private sector to provide broadband access to sparsely populated and non-commercial areas, especially during the current telecoms market downturn.
The Mason Communications Report makes a clear distinction between the broadband services required by the vast majority of companies and those required by telecoms-intensive knowledge-based industries such as back-office operations and multimedia computer software operations. It is also important to recognise that there is a range of competing technologies, each with its own positives and negatives, different applications and different market prospects. New technologies are continually emerging and presenting new challenges and opportunities, so there is no single or specific magic bullet technology that will, at a stroke, answer the needs of all industries.
In conclusion, the Mason Communications study indicates that in a privatised market with competing telecommunications suppliers the Government have to remain technology-neutral while, at the same time, doing what they can to demonstrate the applicability of various technologies and to stimulate demand for broadband services. In effect, Northern Ireland’s twin challenges are basically non-technological: to increase demand and increase competition.
Within the perimeters I have outlined – and taking full account of the current Northern Ireland position and the challenges we face – my Department is already engaged in a proactive programme with three key facets.
To stimulate demand, we must demonstrate to potential users, particularly industry and the small and medium-sized enterprise (SME) sector, what each technology can contribute to their business and the associated costs. Accordingly, I have established an e-solutions centre at the Industrial Research and Technology Unit (IRTU) to demonstrate to business not only the various technologies on offer, but the costs and quality of service associated with them. At the new centre demonstrations are provided of broadband access technologies such as leased line, asymmetric digital subscriber line (ADSL), integrated services digital network (ISDN), standard telephone, satellite, wireless access, mobile 2·5 G and Bluetooth, which is wireless technology.
The e-solutions centre provides the only facility in Northern Ireland where companies can compare and contrast these technologies and get impartial objective advice from skilled telecoms experts. Indeed, the facility has been visited by the regional development agencies in the rest of the UK and is regarded as a leading example of demand-side activity; it is a facility that many of the regional development agencies may well replicate in the months ahead.
IRTU is developing an outreach marketing strategy, which will entail taking that expertise out through the rest of the region. That strategy will include sub-regional demonstrations of leading-edge technology at key locations throughout the Province. Regional advisers have been appointed to operate with this outreach activity and to provide guidance and advice on a one-to-one basis to companies.
Those three very different initiatives will serve not only to demonstrate the relative use of each key technology, but to stimulate market demand. In this context I am particularly keen to address the potential needs of SMEs, especially those outside the Greater Belfast area without access to affordable broadband telecommunications.
I have already announced financial aid for SMEs in such areas to facilitate their access to broadband services via satellite. That – again an exemplar initiative – provides each SME with up to 50% support for both the setting up and first-year running costs of satellite connections up to a maximum of £1,500. To date, over 60 requests for application forms have been received. Over 20 of those have been completed and returned, and 10 letters of offer have been issued. I am confident that our target of 250 SMEs will be achieved.
An additional benefit of the programme has been the stimulation of the satellite market in Northern Ireland, with four satellite providers — Aramiska, Xantia, Eirstream, and BeyondDSL — as well as BT, contacting IRTU to state their intentions to pursue proactively local demand.
I understand that we are the first region in the UK to implement this kind of initiative, and in our recent discussions with the Department of Public Enterprise in the Republic, considerable interest was expressed in the possibility of replicating the initiative in that jurisdiction.
In relation to the Department of Trade and Industry’s £30 million broadband fund, I have also secured £1·5 million from that Department for a range of innovative feasibility schemes and pilot actions designed to examine various ways of extending broadband technologies to a wider range of users. My Department will soon be inviting applications for feasibility and pilot actions.
In that context, my Department has already contacted local councils, as we recognise that they could have a key role to play in facilitating local access in their communities, and we will be taking forward our discussions with the economic development consortia, involving organisations such as CORE, SEED and Into the West. We will be contacting those organisations to discuss possible ways of working together to stimulate feasibility and pilot actions.
Since the Mason Communications study concluded that the main problem in Northern Ireland — as in many other regions and countries — is local access, we have also been considering how best to create market demand to encourage broadband roll-out by the private sector. That is another important area in which local councils, public bodies and private sector contacts can play a collaborative role in creating demand. Accordingly, my Department is working towards a call for proposals for local access projects and a request for expressions of interest in possible flagship projects that might, for example, link our science park developments with our research centres of excellence.
As Members will be aware, current market conditions are not immediately conducive to a positive response from the private sector — though not precluding a significant response from the public sector — so the precise timing of such calls and requests requires careful consideration, as do the state aid and legislative implications. Work is currently proceeding on both those issues, and I propose to keep the Assembly informed of subsequent developments.
Meanwhile, I would be grateful if Members could encourage as positive a response as possible in their respective constituencies to our current demand-side initiatives, especially from their district councils, working in concert or collaboration with one another. The more that local councils, other public sector bodies and the private sector work together and pool their requirements to create the necessary critical mass of market demand, the better. We would be particularly keen to see consortia-based activities, preferably with different technological applications.
In that collaborative context, the aggregation of public sector demand is a particularly important issue. I am pleased to say that an interdepartmental working group has been established, following discussions with the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister, to examine how best to approach the aggregation of public sector demand within Government and the related public services. It might not be possible to do that in all circumstances, and various initiatives are under way to promote the greater use of broadband in the areas of education, libraries and health.
A formidable amount of work is proceeding on the progressive development of the telecommunications strategy. Much work has been, and is being, done to advance this important economic and social issue. Over the coming months, further initiatives will be proceeding, and I am looking to a continuous dialogue with the Assembly and its Committees as this important issue is taken forward.

Dr Alasdair McDonnell: I welcome the Minister’s statement, especially the announcement of the e-solutions centre. That is a great move forward. It begins to create a healthier e-commerce culture around the various funding packages, especially that for small and medium-sized enterprises. The granting to them of access to broadband services is most welcome. However, can the Minister go a little further and be more specific about what we are doing, if anything, on a hands-on version to demonstrate applicability and increase usage?
He mentioned local government and our various constituencies, and I will do all in my power to promote the thing. He even mentioned the aggregation of public sector demand for broadband, and that is my greatest concern. I wonder what, if anything, we can do to bring the various Government Departments under our control into the twenty-first century. The public sector seems to have a massive resistance to getting wired up and using e-commerce to its full extent.
I am particularly concerned about health, where I have some expertise. Again, I emphasise that I am not making a political point, or pointing the finger at the Minister of Health. I am simply asking that those people down the line in the bowels of the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety get their act together, because we are in the nineteenth century in terms of communication strategy.
Does the Minister feel that there is something that can be done? There is no point in preaching to, or pushing, the private sector, if our own house is not in order.

Sir Reg Empey: Dr McDonnell is correct in saying that we have to lead by example. We have trawled round all the Departments and asked them to tell us the level of demand that they currently experience. Dr McDonnell is also correct that health would be the largest single user. Clearly, health and education would be the largest users in the Government sector.
However, the reason for aggregating public sector demand is to find out what everybody currently uses, to estimate growth and to find out what the total is. Currently every Department does its own thing, has its own telecommunications budget and makes its own arrangements.
The purpose of this exercise is to find out how many users are in a particular area and what their volume of use is. Private companies will not put in the services unless there is a critical volume of use. Many of the companies will not know what that is. Indeed, the Government do not know. However, over recent months — especially in the past year — we have learnt more about the demand out there. We have a much clearer picture today than we had a year ago.
Two things will happen. First, if a major user of broadband is just up the road, it will be much cheaper for a company to link into that when it is nearby than if it was at a long distance. That is common sense. Secondly, we must get competition into the market, and that is the only way we will bring costs down. If suppliers begin to see where there is a volume, they can focus on that area and put the infrastructure in place. They will know that there will be an economic volume of traffic to justify the investment.
Basically, it is a very simple exercise. Local authorities, working in conjunction with groups in their area, will have better local knowledge, and they can go through the exercise locally and identify where the key users might be.
Dr McDonnell talked about resistance. Initially there may have been a little resistance, but that is breaking down. When I was in London in November 2001 I met Douglas Alexander, the Minister at the Department of Trade and Industry who has responsibility for these matters. He made it clear that the Government in London are making this one of their top priorities. The public sector has a critical volume that can stimulate this demand and take the lead. That is what we are all trying to do.
I said that the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment is trying to stimulate demand by other means. We have the centre at IRTU where people can come along and see all the technologies in front of them. What do ADSL, wireless, and satellite mean? People can come to the centre and find out.
They will get indications of what it will cost them and what it will do, and they will take advice. Five advisers have been appointed throughout the Province. They will talk with companies on a one-to-one basis, and training can be provided if it is deemed necessary. We are trying to take the message out to the country so that people will have access, and we are trying to stimulate demand, something about which I have been frequently asked in the Chamber.

Mr Oliver Gibson: E-commerce and e-technology are the new infrastructures, and they are useful as a means of overcoming remoteness and rurality. I welcome the Minister’s efforts on the SMEs. As far as my constituency is concerned, the emphasis must be on the small rather than the medium. Given the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development’s recent statement on the vision for agriculture and rural diversification, what co-operation has the Minister’s Department had with the promotion and stimulation of broadband and, indeed, other forms of telecommunications, so that rurality and remoteness are replaced by equality of opportunity for the rural west?

Mr Speaker: I do not know whether it is because the debate is about telecommunications, but I am experiencing a great deal of interference and white noise. Before I call the Minister to reply, I ask Members who wish to have conversations to have them in the Lobby and let those Members who are desperately struggling with this complex matter to hear what the Minister says.

Sir Reg Empey: May I suggest that satellite technology might be the cure for that, Mr Speaker?
Mr Gibson has questioned me on several occasions over the past two years on this. Indeed, all the members of team West Tyrone have questioned me consistently and frequently on this. He is correct. This can be one of the tools that we can use to ease the problems of remoteness in the rural west. We are currently using IRTU’s new pilot scheme, which, as I referred to in my remarks, is the first in the United Kingdom. We have put £250,000 into this scheme. It means that a small company — it could be a one-or-two- person company — can apply to the Department, and we will assess the application. We will pay up to £1,500 or 50% of the cost of the hardware, the software and half of the first year’s running costs. At the end of that year we will assess the position of the company and whether it feels that it has benefited.
We have also secured £1·5 million from the Department of Trade and Industry in London, which will enable us to undertake such pilot schemes. In the first instance, we are thinking of a wireless-based scheme, which would be very suitable for a rural area. A base station linking a number of users in a particular geographical area would provide those people with access. That is a pilot that we could run, and there are others. The whole purpose, as Mr Gibson will know, is to provide access and to level the pitch for people in remote areas.
There is a misunderstanding about broadband. It is widely available in Greater Belfast and throughout Northern Ireland, because there is a backbone network through most major towns. However, it can be an expensive process to get involved in, so we are looking for a variety of technologies. Away from the major centres of population, although technically possible, it is in practice economically impossible.
We are exploring cheaper technologies, and satellite has helped. We have four operators in the market that are suited to areas such as west Tyrone. The Department of Agriculture and Rural Development has responded positively to our request for information about demand. Opportunities, especially for rural areas, will present themselves under INTERREG III.

Mr Mitchel McLaughlin: Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. I welcome the Minister’s consistent efforts to ensure that the local economy is technologically proficient and can compete in the global marketplace. The Minister has stretched himself in exploring all possibilities. Does he agree that satellite technology is the most expensive and least cost-effective system, notwithstanding the grant aid that would be needed to cover set-up costs and running costs for the first year? That system would institutionalise disadvantage in the rural community.
BT has a fully developed fibre-optic system in all its main exchanges in the North. In exchange for the modest investment of £250,000, it could render proficient each of the exchanges in their delivery of an ADSL to every household, small and medium-sized enterprise, college, school, hospital, medical centre and Department, which would facilitate joined-up government. Would that not be more cost-effective? Would it not create the level playing field that some Members and the Minister referred to if BT were encouraged to accelerate the process of upgrading its exchanges from south Fermanagh to north Down and for everyone in the North. Go raibh míle maith agat.

Sir Reg Empey: I do not accept that satellite is the most expensive form of technology. Satellite could be one of the least expensive technologies for rural areas. It would cost a fortune to install a hard wire in a rural area. In some cases, it would be almost impossible to finance without a huge subsidy. Satellite could cost £150 to £300 a month to operate. There is a misunderstanding about ADSL. For technical reasons, it works only in a radius of 3 to 5 miles of its exchange because of electricity and the movement of data, so one can imagine the number of stations that would be required. Each station costs between £200,000 and £300,000.
ADSL is suitable only in certain situations. The system allows a user to receive eight times more information in than it can give out; it is asymmetric. It would, therefore, be useful to a domestic user who wants video information. Such a user could get plenty of information in and would not need to put it out again. We must be careful not to focus on only one technology, because not every technology works in the same situation. Provision should be made on a case-by-case basis. One reason that the Department has avoided backing a specific technology is that the situation is evolving continuously. New inventions and developments are coming forward. We cannot say today what will be necessarily the most suitable solution in one or two years’ time, so we will try to remain technology-neutral.
First, I assure Mr McLaughlin that we have established that at the very least we are on a par with, and in some cases better than, our nearest competitors in the Republic and in the rest of the United Kingdom, and our intention is to ensure that we remain ahead. Secondly, we are the first region in the UK to run this pilot scheme. Thirdly, Mr McLaughlin should be aware that we have a full and major commitment — not only on the equality issue, but because it makes economic sense — to ensure that all the Province can make a contribution to our economic development. They can do it on the basis that they will be on as level a playing field as we can possibly make with the major centres of population.
Basically, that is our policy. The costs will change from year to year, and that is a lesson that we have learnt. However, I assure Mr McLaughlin that currently satellite technology is not the most expensive.

Mr Roy Beggs: I declare an interest in encouraging businesses to adopt modern IT methods, in that I am a council nominee director of a local enterprise agency. I welcome the Minister’s proposals to keep Northern Ireland’s telecommunications infrastructure at the cutting edge of technology.
However, does he agree that in addition to the e-solutions centre at IRTU, his Department should encourage IT partnerships between universities, further education colleges, local businesses and enterprise agencies? Furthermore, does he agree that local government is often the first line of interaction between the public and the public bodies? With reference to the interdepartmental working group, does he believe that there can be benefits if there is collaboration between councils, and that local government needs are considered within the group?

Sir Reg Empey: Mr Beggs will be aware that through the Department’s information age initiative, the local enterprise network succeeded in its bid and received one of our major projects. The local enterprise network received money from the Executive programme funds. Indeed, it is one of the leaders.
I agree with him that, consequently, IT partnerships are a key issue. As he is a member of one of the local authorities in the core group, which comprises local authorities in County Antrim and County Londonderry, he will be aware that those local authorities are already working together. It is a consortium that has the potential to take forward an issue such as this. The south-east economic development (SEED) group of local authorities in the Province has the opportunity to do the same.
With regard to the link with the universities, there is a system called SuperJANET, which is a fibre-based exchange that allows huge amounts of information to pass between research centres in universities. I do not think that local further education colleges are currently linked to it, but I understand that it is being considered that where research is being conducted, there is a need for broadband availability.
I support Mr Beggs in saying that the interdepartmental working group is working actively on ways in which we can stimulate demand. More and more people have access to those technologies, but our job is to ensure that people use them. Three years ago Northern Ireland was almost bottom of the UK league of people having access to those services. We have caught up and are now competitive. However, we have to stimulate the demand even further, so that when we come to the point of encouraging companies to put in the infrastructure, they know that there is enough to justify their investments.
We welcome IT partnerships, and we encourage them to progress the roll-out of broadband locally as an economic development tool. We sought proactively to promote partnerships between local authorities and the local enterprise agencies. We are carrying out those two policies.
Further education colleges and universities are linked to the SuperJANET network. Therefore, we already have links in the further and higher education sector. In the information-age initiatives we are seeking to encourage the same links through the enterprise agencies. If that is encouraged, I believe that it will result in increased demand.

Mr Eugene McMenamin: Telecommunications are paramount in our economic and social structure, with so many users now being online. Does the Minister envisage cross-border links, especially in border regions, with other servers to provide a service for the rural population? Households in West Tyrone cannot avail of ADSL or affordable broadband services.

Sir Reg Empey: Mr McMenamin, like Mr Gibson, has availed of the opportunity to draw my attention to his constituency, as he has done on several occasions.
There are undoubtedly cross-border issues. Through INTERREG III there is potential for co-operation where there is currently no broadband availability. There are also opportunities through InterTradeIreland, which has the potential to invest in particular business-to- business projects. However, there is a wider issue here. Currently, we have only one major cross-border link, which runs down the eastern corridor. If anything goes wrong with that link, there are major difficulties — for example, if a digger breaks the link. There is, therefore, merit in having an alternative route to reinforce the service and provide a security of service. That is being considered.
There is also the roaming call problem, where the situation could arise, under the Eircom link, of having to make an international call from one part of a town in Northern Ireland to another part of the same town. That is not so much a governmental issue as one for the private companies to resolve, but it will have to be dealt with on a bilateral basis. Regulators may become involved in that problem.
The cross-border dimension has been reflected in discussions between my Department and the Department of Public Enterprise. There is also a huge east/west dimension. The world is a big place, and this is a relatively small geographical area. Companies are operating in both jurisdictions, and there is potential, especially in the rural areas, to extend the availability. The right answer for all situations will not always be ADSL — there are alternatives. We want to have test runs with satellite and wireless telecommunication for rural application.

Mr Ian Paisley Jnr: Does the Minister agree that this technology sets the boundaries for technological and economic development for the future? Does he agree also that the key issue is local access, because it will determine inward investment in the future?
I wrote to the Minister about the situation in Ballymoney and the issue of remoteness — a subject that other Members have addressed. In that area, broadband is available only to users in a 5 km radius of the telephone exchange. There is a capacity of only two megabytes per second (MBPS), and that allows only 60 concurrent users at any one time. Does the Minister agree that such limited availability will make it difficult to attract inward investment to that area?
Will he address that problem by ensuring that the pilot and feasibility schemes that he has announced will look sympathetically at Ballymoney and other rural areas that are off the main hub connections, and that such areas will get a fair crack of the whip of technological advance?

Sir Reg Empey: Yes, I will. The main focus of the initiative is local access. Mr Paisley has drawn the Ballymoney issue to my attention. It is true that there are several ADSL-enabled exchanges in Northern Ireland, but there are none at Ballymoney. The closest ADSL exchanges are in Ballymena and Coleraine. No one beyond about 4 km or 5 km of the exchange has access to the technology, because of the technical issues. That reinforces my point that ADSL may not be the solution in every circumstance. Access to the service is the key issue. How the service is provided is a secondary issue.
I assure Mr Paisley that consideration will be given to the interests from that area. I do not know whether we have had applications from that area; perhaps it is too early to say. I said that there have been about 60 applications; the actual number may be over 70. I am confident that we will reach the target of 250 applications, although the programme has been running for only a few weeks. A range of technological solutions can counter the problem of remoteness that Mr Paisley mentioned, and I assure him that applications from the Ballymoney area will be given full consideration.

Mr Joe Byrne: Telecommunications infrastructure is now as crucial as any physical infrastructure. I welcome the e-solutions centre at IRTU, which will greatly benefit small and medium-sized enterprises. Can the Minister tell us how the regional organisers will operate? Where will they be based, and will their budget be adequate to engage effectively with small and medium-sized enterprises? Given that public service agencies and Government Departments could make greater use of that type of technology, does the Minister believe that decentralisation of Civil Service jobs could be facilitated in regional towns?

Sir Reg Empey: Mr Byrne never misses an opportunity to raise that issue. I did not expect it to be raised in this round of questions, so he did very well to squeeze it in. My Colleague Seán Farren is dealing with the matter of decentralisation of Civil Service jobs, and he has the report on it. The availability of appropriate telecommunications, which are crucial for the operation of any Government Department, is a significant issue. Undoubtedly, it will be easier to facilitate decentralisation where such facilities exist.
I said that there would be five special advisers. They will be able to work from the LEDU client list, and will have those connections. The LEDU client executives will be able to direct the special advisers to their customers so that they can update them. That does not mean that only LEDU clients can avail of the service. Anyone who contacts the e-solutions centre to seek advice or help can be facilitated through regional LEDU offices. However, I suspect that the LEDU client list will be the main source of clients. Those companies must be stimulated to avail of the appropriate technology, or at least to test it. It may not be suitable for everybody. However, we would like to see whether companies improve their business after using the technology for a year, or whether they gain or learn something from it and feel that it adds genuine value to their activities. There are no guarantees, but there will be results in many cases. Those results will be measured and tested, and that is how we intend to proceed.

Golden Jubilee Celebrations

Mr Speaker: I have received notice from the Minister of Culture, Arts and Leisure that he wishes to make a statement on the Golden Jubilee celebrations.

Mr Michael McGimpsey: I feel proud and honoured to be the Executive Minister with responsibility for co-ordinating Her Majesty’s Golden Jubilee celebrations in Northern Ireland.
The year 2002 is a historic one for the entire United Kingdom and Commonwealth. However, it is tinged with sadness following the death of Her Royal Highness, The Princess Margaret. The Assembly will know that it was in respect of the wishes of the palace that I did not make any public statements on that event last week. Members know that others did not show the same respect. That was regrettable and, indeed, shameful, because the disrespect came from those who loudly and at every opportunity profess their fidelity to Her Majesty. Although I kept a silence that was motivated entirely by my determination to comply with the wishes of the palace and Whitehall Departments, I had to listen to my actions being described, from the DUP Benches, as "obnoxious, revolting and scurrilous". — [Official Report, Bound Volume 14, p257].
Disgraceful scenes took place in the Chamber last week. However, the Assembly can get over that. It can and must raise the Golden Jubilee from the output of petty minds in the House to a higher level. The Assembly must demonstrate that it can rise above that and show that it can work together for the people of Northern Ireland in a mature and civilised manner. Let us show Her Majesty what we are capable of.
It is typical of Her Majesty that she will not allow personal circumstances to disrupt her duties as Queen and head of state. She is currently fulfilling several Commonwealth engagements around the globe. That is hardly surprising, as her life has been dedicated to her nation and the Commonwealth. That devotion and unselfishness are traits that have made her such a remarkable person. She has earned the admiration, respect and affection afforded her throughout the world. She has done that for the past 50 years — only the fifth monarch to do so in the past 1,000 years. Her Golden Jubilee is a milestone in our history and is worthy of appropriate recognition.
Not everyone in Northern Ireland will share those sentiments. However, the fact that we sit in the Assembly shows that the Province is entering a new era. Together we have broken new ground across society. People realise that we must work together for the sake of our children and for future generations. Now, more than ever, there is greater appreciation that the histories of all the people of these islands are linked inextricably. The monarchy is part of our shared heritage. I am not so naive as to expect that all sections of society will share in the celebrations. However, I believe that all people will recognise that the jubilee is a significant event in our history.
The celebrations that my Department will help to fund will not be about defeating foes. They will not be about domination of one section of society by the other. They will not be about judging others’ values and beliefs. They will not seek to achieve any ends other than that which they purport to commemorate — 50 years of hard, unstinting duty fulfilled by Her Majesty The Queen on behalf of all UK citizens. Different cultures can live and work side by side as full partners. Other countries have proved that that can be done; Northern Ireland can prove it too. I believe firmly that the promotion of one tradition does not mean the diminution of the other. The Golden Jubilee year provides a platform for the communities in Northern Ireland to come together in celebration. It provides a non-threatening opportunity to look to the future as well as a chance to look back at the events and changes of the past 50 years. I wish to see the Golden Jubilee celebrated in style throughout the Province.
The Department of Culture, Arts and Leisure has publicised the occasion widely. Although it is still early days, I am pleased with the response so far. More than 450 events have already been planned. Those will be published in a special booklet, titled the ‘Golden Jubilee Diary of Events’, which will give an overview of the celebrations taking place across Northern Ireland.
A small sample of those events includes a festival of evensong in Armagh, conducted by the Archbishop of Armagh, Lord Eames. A special garden in Newtownards designed for curriculum-based activities will also cater for a diverse range of community groups, such as people with special needs, the elderly and pre-school children. The Indian community will also contribute to the festivities by performing dance routines and music in its own colourful and unique way.
Many events can be expensive to run. Therefore, financial assistance is being made available from both National Lottery sources and my Department. The Awards for All scheme, run by lottery distributors, invites applications from organisations and groups that are planning events to celebrate the Golden Jubilee.
My Department has also initiated a small grants scheme for groups unable to accept lottery funding. A budget of £200,000 has been set aside for that. More than 260 applications are being considered, which demonstrates the high level of community interest and shows further evidence of the high esteem in which the Queen is held in Northern Ireland. In the light of that enthusiastic take-up in the Province, I am investigating the possibility of securing moneys to enable another funding round. Meanwhile, the Awards for All scheme remains open.
Among the planned events that my Department supports is a tour of Belfast for 70 senior citizens, which will provide an opportunity for the less mobile and those on limited incomes to take a nostalgic look at the changes that have taken place in our capital city in the past 50 years. A one-day event will be held in County Down, featuring a historic exhibition that will include a display of wedding dresses that are more than 50 years old, farming practices, the community, local bands and the royal family.
A book of memories is being compiled that will include personal recollections and photographs for publication and posterity by senior citizens in a day care centre in County Antrim. The Ulster Museum will display 10 of the finest drawings by Renaissance master Leonardo da Vinci, which are on loan from the royal library in Windsor Castle.
Members will agree that all those projects fit neatly into the themes that Her Majesty has suggested are appropriate to commemorate the occasion, especially the theme of celebrating the community. In addition, several local schoolchildren have already participated in a nationwide poetry competition. The winners will visit the palace in the summer. District councils are also playing their part. Many are organising events and assisting financially.
The idea of giving every schoolchild a commemorative memento has been floated. I am considering that idea. However, its cost would be substantial, and inevitably there would be waste. No matter how accurately the likely take-up of the offer was determined, some schools would decline to participate. Medals may be an option, but they are only one option.
I do not see why our planning should be constrained by what has happened previously; we can allow ourselves to be more flexible. I am keeping in mind Her Majesty’s wish that there should be no undue expenditure from public funds on the programme of celebrations.
Among the options that I am investigating are ways in which children might become involved in celebrations that could also benefit their educational or personal development, and at the same time be fun and memorable. In other words, we can approach the subject creatively and imaginatively.
It would be inappropriate for me to go into detail now. However, initiatives that I am considering include small bursaries for schools or the production of CD ROMs, which all schoolchildren might enjoy and from which they would benefit. I shall continue to investigate options, and I shall keep the House informed.
Northern Ireland is progressing on many fronts, at a time when the monarchy is also undergoing a transitional period regarding its public perception. Therefore, it is a time of change both for the people of the Province and for the monarchy. I do not fear that. Times of change are a challenge and a test, and the monarchy is facing this time of change with resolve, confidence and courage.
By so doing it sets an example for every person in the Province. The Golden Jubilee celebrations give us a wonderful opportunity to celebrate an illustrious past and an exciting future. We can all play a part in that, and I am proud to play mine.

Mr Eamonn ONeill: The Minister’s statement gave a considerable amount of detail on the plans for the Golden Jubilee, and I thank him for that. Coming from a Nationalist tradition, and from one of the oldest families in Europe with its share of princely and kingly involvement, I recognise that the jubilee is a significant event for many British people, especially those from the Unionist tradition in Northern Ireland. This is an opportunity for Nationalists to show their commitment to the Good Friday Agreement by ensuring that all those who wish to celebrate the jubilee are not only free to do so but are encouraged and supported. In that context, has the Minister any plans to liaise with district councils so that every opportunity exists for a cohesive approach?

Mr Michael McGimpsey: All district councils will play a role. Many have set aside budgets for small grant schemes, and programmes of events have been planned. The role of the Department of Culture, Arts and Leisure is to liaise continually with all interested parties. District councils, with local representation, have an important role to play, and that will supplement perfectly the lottery’s Awards For All scheme, which I have mentioned, and my Department’s scheme for non-lottery funding. Wider celebration themes are emerging regionally, nationally and internationally. Major events have been planned by almost 50 countries, and a prime way to feed information to district councils has been to set up a local government forum to brief their Golden Jubilee officers.

Mr Speaker: May I remind Members that we have a substantial number of questions, and the limit of time for questions on the statement is one hour. I remind everyone to be as concise as possible.

Dr Ian Adamson: As an Ulster Loyalist, an Irish Royalist and a British Unionist, I commend the Minister’s statement to the House. On 4 May 1977, in the year of her Silver Jubilee, the Queen said of Nationalist aspirations:
"I number kings and queens of England and of Scotland and Princes of Wales among my ancestors, so I can readily understand these aspirations. But I cannot forget that I was crowned Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Perhaps this Jubilee is a time to remind ourselves of the benefits which union has conferred on the inhabitants of all parts of the United Kingdom at home and in our international dealings."
As the Minister said, the year 2002 still sees the monarchy held in high esteem throughout the world. Imbued with the established wisdom of an ancient civilisation —

Mr Speaker: Order. I have to ask the Member to ask a question. The reshuffle of Ministers will take place later on today, and then we will see who can make statements. However, at this point this Minister has made a statement, and I ask the Member to ask a question on it.

Dr Ian Adamson: I will indeed, Mr Speaker. The substance of my question is contained in the statement.

Mr Speaker: I ask the Member to ask a question.

Dr Ian Adamson: OK. That is a shame. Yes. You have interrupted the flow, Mr Speaker.

Mr Speaker: If it is too difficult for the Member to find the question, he can hardly find fault with my wondering where it is. This is an opportunity for questions not speeches, and I made that clear before I called any Members.

Dr Ian Adamson: Mr Speaker, to make sense of a question, there must be an introit. I will keep going.

Mr Speaker: The introits do not always make sense of the question.

Dr Ian Adamson: Mr Speaker, I can assure you that this does. Does the Minister see the Golden Jubilee as a unique opportunity to emphasise the Ulster and Irish origins of the British monarchy?

Mr Michael McGimpsey: There are many themes coming through that reflect our heritage. We have a rich and varied heritage and culture, of which the monarchy forms a pivotal part. As I said, it is only the fifth time in 1,000 years that a monarch has reached a Golden Jubilee, which is a major historic event and something to be celebrated on that level alone.
There are connections to the monarchy that run through these islands. It is important to point out that every opinion poll taken in the UK shows that the monarchy and the Queen have the overwhelming support of the general public, and that speaks volumes.

Mr Maurice Morrow: The Minister’s statement will come as a big disappointment to the House. Given his comments last week, we were expecting much more. However, at least today he is speaking and not huffing as he was last week, and we welcome that.
The Minister’s statement and the lack of commitment by his Department tell their own stories. In his statement he says that events are costly to organise. Given the amount of money that he is placing at the disposal of those who want to organise events, you would almost think that they were cheap. He has set aside a budget of £200,000. To date, there have been 260 applications, so that works out at an average of £769 per event, which would just about pay for the liability insurance. It will come as a disappointment to those who wish to go forward —

Mr Speaker: I must ask the Member to come to the question.

Mr Maurice Morrow: Will the Minister assure the House that, in the event of the Department of Education’s not carrying out the wishes of the House to give every schoolchild a suitable souvenir to mark the Queen’s Golden Jubilee, his Department will step in and make such provision?

Mr Michael McGimpsey: I must correct Mr Morrow. He said that I was huffing last week. I thought that I made it clear to Mr Morrow that I was following the wishes of the palace. The Department for Culture, Media and Sport issued a statement with the agreement of the palace to the effect that there would be no announcements or pronouncements on the Golden Jubilee, and that is why I kept quiet. So it was not a question, Mr Morrow, of huffing; it was a question of obeying the wishes of the palace.

Mr Maurice Morrow: The Minister should address the Chair.

Mr Michael McGimpsey: The Member can point at me if he wants. However, it is a matter that merits a degree of respect, manners and decency. This is the Queen’s Golden Jubilee, and it is inappropriate for anyone to use it to score cheap, party political points.
Mr Morrow spoke of how disappointed he is. This is not primarily about money. The proposed celebrations will not cost large amounts of money. The Queen’s express wish is that there should be no undue expenditure from public funds on the programme of celebrations.
Mr Morrow, you should be careful. Please do not point — it is rude to point.

Mr Speaker: Order. Members should speak through the Chair. It would be wise, particularly in situations such as this, for Members to avoid addressing one another directly.

Mr Michael McGimpsey: The award scheme to which I refer is a non-lottery fund, which was set up by the Department of Culture, Arts and Leisure. There is no closing date for applications to the Awards for All scheme. Several organisations object to taking lottery funding, so the Department set up a non-lottery fund, the fund to which I referred. As I said, given the uptake, I can make a case for increasing that fund.
The Department has been working on the matter for some time. In July 2001, it established a Northern Ireland Golden Jubilee advisory group. It also set up and publicised the special funding scheme, established the local government forum to brief district council Golden Jubilee officers, and briefed Lord Lieutenants and Deputy Lieutenants. General information leaflets were published, some 20,000 of which were distributed throughout the district council areas. The Department has also worked with other devolved Administrations and Buckingham Palace to arrange, for example, the Golden Jubilee poetry competition. A great deal has been done, and I am sorry that Mr Morrow is disappointed.
Some 260 events are planned under the non-lottery award scheme alone. There are many other applications, and I can argue for more funding. The Awards for All scheme is also available. Northern Ireland has planned some 450 events, roughly a quarter of all the events planned in the United Kingdom. That indicates that Northern Ireland is doing well. More people want to celebrate here, and we are organising more events than any other part of the United Kingdom. The arrangements should not be a matter for disappointment.
The Department is still considering providing a memento of the occasion, and I am happy to provide further details.

Rev Dr Ian Paisley: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. How can the Minister tell the House that he was silent last week? He was not silent; he was speaking on a motion that was not even before the House.

Mr Speaker: The question of the Minister’s silence arose in an accusation by someone else, which the Minister repeated. I do not normally take points of order during ministerial statements. Some points of order arose — not that which the Member has just raised, but that to which I referred. Members should keep to the normal order of business, and questions should be concise so that as many Members as possible can speak.

A Member: What about the answers?

Mr Speaker: I refer to everyone who speaks, whether they are asking or answering questions. It would be helpful if Members could be as concise as possible.

Mr John Kelly: Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. As an Irish Republican, I share the view of British Republicans that the monarchy is a costly anachronism that should be abolished.
Does the Minister agree — [Interruption].

Mr Speaker: Order.

Mr John Kelly: Does the Minister agree that the Act of Settlement of 1701 is the bedrock of the Union, the Church of England, Parliament and the independence of the judiciary because, by ensuring that no Catholic ever ascended to the British throne, and by preventing a future monarch from marrying a Catholic or bringing up children in the Catholic faith, it remains the last great repository of anti-Catholic prejudice in the British Constitution? Will he further agree that the language of the Act of Settlement, which refers to papists and persons marrying papists, is offensive and a positive encouragement to lingering discrimination? Will he lend his weight —[Interruption].
11.45 am

Mr Speaker: Order. There has been some misunderstanding. Questions on a statement should relate to the statement and not to issues surrounding the statement. I cannot allow the Minister to reply to the question that the Member has just asked because it does not relate to the statement — fascinating though that question may be, and one to which many Members would be delighted to respond. If the Member has a specific question on the statement about the jubilee celebrations, I will happily give him a chance to ask it, but I will not allow questions on other matters.

Mr John Kelly: Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. The Minister’s statement makes it difficult for Nationalists even to contemplate celebrating the jubilee. Will the Minister lend his support to the abolition of that bigoted Act?

Mr Speaker: It is perfectly understandable that the Member may wish to explain why he does not want to participate in the matter. However, that question does not relate to the statement.

Mrs Eileen Bell: I welcome the enthusiastic statement on the Golden Jubilee celebrations. I hope that it will be a wonderful opportunity for all of us to celebrate it appropriately and that the Department of Culture, Arts and Leisure will facilitate those celebrations as much as possible.
To the Minister’s knowledge, has there been cross- community take-up of the Awards for All scheme, and has the invitation to participate in the awards been extended to the whole Province? Will the celebrations that are being organised complement those of the district councils, and are there any plans for councillors and Assembly Members, working together, to join the celebrations so that it appears that the Province’s public representatives are celebrating?

Mr Michael McGimpsey: We have had discussions with every council. Most have taken forward ideas, and many have produced budget lines. I am not familiar with all the details of the cross-community element. However, one of the events that I attended — the launch of the poetry competition — had a strong cross-community element.
There has been a widespread take-up of events throughout the Province, and every area and district council will be represented. It is a matter for each district council to determine how it liaises and works with Assembly Members.

Mr Billy Hutchinson: I welcome the Minister’s statement. Has he been involved in discussions with the clerk of the course at Down Royal to organise an event? After all, horse racing is known as the sport of kings, and everyone knows of the Queen’s commitment to horse racing since she was a young girl. If there is a block on having an event because of the fixtures, perhaps we could arrange for such an event to take place on a Sunday.

Mr Michael McGimpsey: I have not been in direct contact with anyone at Down Royal. I am aware that horse racing is regarded as the sport of kings, and it is well known that Her Majesty and the royal family have a deep personal interest in that sport and have followed it all their lives. With regard to a celebratory horse race at Down Royal, I do not know how things stand. That is not a matter for me.

Rev Robert Coulter: I commend the Minister and his Department on the statement. Can the Minister describe the Department’s award scheme and explain why there was such an early closing date for it?

Mr Michael McGimpsey: Rev Robert Coulter refers to our in-Department non-lottery scheme. The Awards for All scheme is still open — it has not closed — and will continue. We launched our non-lottery scheme with some £200,000 for grants ranging from £500 to £5,000. It is a small grants scheme and in keeping with the themes agreed with the palace — themes such as the Commonwealth, looking forward as well as back, community service and a giving thanks celebration.
We have had a large number of applications, and we need to be able to assess them in detail. Since the budget does not cover all the applications, I can make a case for further funding. As I have said, this is not about money. People want to celebrate, and whether they get a grant or not, they will go and celebrate. Some of the schemes are for street parties organised by primary schools. This is about small events, people coming together and celebrating and a sense of community. It is also about other themes such as giving thanks. The grants scheme in itself will not be the index of how many awards or events come though. Ultimately there will be far more events than awards, because that type of enthusiasm is in the Province.

Rev William McCrea: If the Minister were to be judged on the criteria he has set, degree of creativity and imagination, this programme would not even get a pass mark, never mind a credit or distinction. His programme is a failure. The Minister must take up the decision of the Assembly and give the children the right to a proper memento of Her Majesty’s illustrious 50-year reign.
When the Minister is not busying himself playing hokey-cokey with IRA/Sinn Féin’s Martin McGuinness on the front of the ‘News Letter’ in preparation for evensong in Armagh, perhaps he could practise the new words of an old song:
"We are busy doing nothing, Working the whole day through, Trying to find lots of things not to do. We are busy going nowhere; Isn’t it such a crime, I’d like to be a Unionist, But I really don’t have time."
Surely this sums up the Minister and the programme before us. I note the cries from his Sinn Féin supporters — that is no surprise. [Interruption].

Mr Speaker: Invitations from other Members for the Member to convey his question in a song are not appropriate, even though this particular Member could do it extremely well.

Rev William McCrea: Thank you for that vote of confidence, Mr Speaker. It is a general vote of confidence from the public of Northern Ireland.
Coming back to the memento, I ask the Minister to take the matter raised in the Assembly seriously. Some may consider it a waste, but if the work is done now and the schools and children contacted — those who want to be — this would be the proper way to mark the illustrious reign of Her Majesty, Queen Elizabeth II.

Mr Michael McGimpsey: Dr McCrea says he is disappointed with the programme, yet he does not know what the programme is. I gave only some examples. It is unfortunate that the 260 people who are organising events should be treated to that sort of criticism from Dr McCrea — that they all have to try harder. [Interruption].

Rev William McCrea: It is criticism of a "do nothing" Minister.

Mr Michael McGimpsey: Mr Speaker, I had hoped that this debate would not descend to this level. Of course, I should have realised that Rev William McCrea was in the Chamber. When I made reference to setting the tone, I was indeed referring to some things that have been said to me by Dr McCrea.
The themes we are discussing exhort that the Golden Jubilee be relevant, appropriate, leave a legacy, keep within reasonable cost. Those are the themes set down by Her Majesty — they have been agreed for some time — and they are to be realised through celebration, giving thanks, service, community, looking forward as well as back and the Commonwealth.
We have looked at the prospect of celebrating the jubilee through the schools, and if Dr McCrea had asked simply whether I agreed that all children had the right to a permanent souvenir of the jubilee, then, of course, the answer would have been "Yes". It is vital, however, that the souvenir should be in keeping with the spirit of the jubilee celebrations and the Queen’s wishes. We have considered medals, and I have samples of mementos that seem to be dear to the hearts of some. No decision has yet been made. However, the cost ranges from £350,000 to £1·25 million, and I am afraid that the cheapest one looks like something you would want to take the paper off to eat the chocolate.
I wanted the children in our schools to receive something of value, something that they would appreciate. For example, one of the ideas was a small bursary per school so that each could celebrate the jubilee in its own creative and imaginative way. I have investigated that idea, and I can find the budget channel for that.
Another idea was the production of a CD-ROM that would provide educational interest to children. We do not simply want a memento. This is not about sentiment. It is about looking forward and giving something of value to our children. The CD-ROM, for example, can provide a permanent educational resource for all schools, including information of specific relevance to the Golden Jubilee, perhaps looking back at Northern Ireland 50 or 25 years ago as well as looking forward, which is a key theme.
An educational outreach resource was another idea. For example, Museums and Art Galleries of Northern Ireland (MAGNI) will hold some exhibitions, and I have mentioned one or two — for example, the Queen’s loan of the Leonardo da Vinci drawings. We could organise it in the same way as the ‘Kings and Conflict’ exhibition, through educational outreach and perhaps through education packs.

Mr Barry McElduff: Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. Can I dissent from my Colleague’s call for Mr McCrea to burst into song? Nonetheless, the Minister will be aware that my Colleagues and I are not avid supporters of the British royal family. Indeed, Mr McGimpsey did acknowledge that many people in the North, perhaps 50% of the population, do not share his sentiments with respect to unstinting duty and that kind of thing. In other words, Irish-minded citizens will not share in the celebrations. Seamus Heaney said
"No glass of ours was ever raised
To toast the Queen."
Can the Minister assure us that he will draw the line where there is an attempt to impose this subject on those who have no interest? I also seek a commitment from the Minister that he will use his considerable influence in his liaison with Belfast City Council to adopt a more even-handed approach with regard to funding celebrations for St Patrick’s Day as well as the jubilee celebrations.

Mr Michael McGimpsey: Of course, the point of all of this is that it is entirely voluntary. I do not agree with Mr McElduff’s figure of 50%. It is much higher than that. Indeed, in the kingdom as a whole it is an overwhelming majority, and there is a clear, strong will, which is evidenced by the number of applications we have received and the number of events that are being planned. They will be published in our ‘Golden Jubilee Diary of Events’ and Mr McElduff can also see that the response is high and strong.
He spoke to criticise the words "enforcing" and "imposing"; nothing is being enforced or imposed. This is an opportunity for everyone to celebrate. Even if one’s outlook prevents one from celebrating, it is an important historic event. It is the fifth time in 1,000 years that there has been a Golden Jubilee. It is something for us all to celebrate in our own way. That is the point of the award schemes. It is certainly not something that Republicans or Nationalists should feel they should oppose. We can all enjoy it, because it looks to the future not just the past.
12.00
St Patrick’s Day is a different matter. As Members will be aware, Belfast City Council required that the organisers of the Belfast St Patrick’s Day celebrations adhered to the criteria laid down by Down District Council. They refused, and that was why the application failed. Had they agreed to the criteria, such difficulties would not have arisen and there would not have been the failed court cases.

Mr Roy Beggs: I welcome the wide-ranging and inclusive nature of the Golden Jubilee proposals outlined by the Minister, which respect the Queen’s wishes. I regret that some people have attempted to politicise the event. I welcome particularly the suggestion of a CD-ROM, which, using new technology, would enable children to celebrate the event and to learn through the occasion. Will the Minister agree to consider a commemorative scroll celebrating the Golden Jubilee, which could be designed centrally and distributed efficiently by CD-ROM? It may then be possible for every child who so wished to receive a personalised scroll so that he or she could celebrate the Golden Jubilee and retain a memento of the occasion.

Mr Michael McGimpsey: A scroll is something that we are also considering. Several ideas have been floated — for example, a jubilee medal, a scroll, a CD-ROM, schools’ bursaries and so forth. Some people have even suggested mugs, pencil cases or pens. There does not seem to be a big difference between the costs of each item. I have set up a jubilee advisory group, which has been in operation since July 2001. I shall take that group’s advice, but Mr Beggs’s idea is under discussion.

Mr Oliver Gibson: Is the Minister aware that his truculence of last week has gained my party seven members? They felt insulted by his behaviour. They found it to be almost an act of disloyalty to the Queen. Just as people received a memento at the time of the coronation, they make the legitimate demand that their grandchildren receive a memento of the fiftieth anniversary of the Queen’s accession. The Minister says that this is not about values or beliefs; then he wisely used the word "celebration". Is the Minister not aware that this celebrates the brilliant concept of a constitutional democracy and recognises unstinting work over 50 years? Is it not befitting that this Government gives every child a memento for the future?

Mr Michael McGimpsey: First, I want to reiterate what I said in my statement. Mr Gibson spoke of "truculence" and claims that his local branch has now increased by seven members — that is probably a threefold increase.
From those benches — [Interruption].
As I said in my statement — and I reiterate it for the benefit of Mr Gibson — I kept a silence, motivated entirely by my determination to comply with the wishes of Whitehall Departments and the palace. Mr Gibson stated that I said that this was not about values or beliefs. I did not say that.
Mr Gibson again asked the question — and I thank him because this is getting finally to the question. It is the question that I have already asked myself publicly twice this morning, and answered myself. I asked: "Do I believe and agree that all schoolchildren have the right to a permanent souvenir of the jubilee?" The answer is yes. I have said that twice already, and I am now saying it for the third time. Mr Gibson clearly missed the answer on the first two occasions, as he missed what I said previously when he described it as "truculence".
I had hoped for a degree of decorum in this discussion — [Interruption].

Mr Speaker: Order.

Mr Michael McGimpsey: — bearing in mind the important subject that we are talking about — the fiftieth anniversary of the Queen’s accession to the throne. That is an important event historically, and an important event on several other levels, not least in relation to values and beliefs.

Mr Danny Kennedy: I welcome the fact that the Minister has confirmed that it is his view that all schoolchildren should receive a permanent souvenir to mark the Queen’s Golden Jubilee. I welcome also the other practical suggestions that he has made — and is considering — for schools and schoolchildren.
Given the high rate of response in applications to the grant scheme from those people who are not happy to accept lottery funding, will the Minister provide an additional tranche of funding to reward the efforts of those who are attempting to organise events throughout Northern Ireland?

Mr Michael McGimpsey: The Awards for All scheme is still open. It has not been curtailed, and there is no closing date. Mr Kennedy is referring primarily to the non- lottery scheme that I, through the Department, set up for those people, organisations and groups who have a moral objection to applying for, and receiving, money from the lottery because of the gambling component. A criteria for the non-lottery fund will be that groups that have a reservation about using lottery money will receive priority. We are still assessing and working our way through the applications.
The scheme is heavily oversubscribed. However, I believe that I can make an argument for further support and resources. It would be wrong for me to make promises, because I am not in a position to do so. I repeat again, however, that I believe that I can make a strong argument for obtaining further resources to supplement the non-lottery fund.

Mr Edwin Poots: I regret the tone of today’s discussion. However, it is the Minister who has set the tone, and it was the Minister who set the tone last week with the comments that he made.
This proposal was in the pipeline for a long time, and it was put before the House before the death of Princess Margaret. Had the Minister genuinely wished to have the motion withdrawn, he could have spoken to the proposer and advised him of the situation. Instead, he chose to make a political point out of it.
Is it not the case that in his contribution today the Minister is using bombast and attacking the Democratic Unionist Party to cover up the fact that he is doing nothing? He said that he is aware that the idea of giving every schoolchild a commemorative memento is being floated. It is not an idea that is being floated, it is a resolution that has been passed by the House. He is choosing to ignore that resolution. What is the Minister doing to move that resolution forward? What consultations has he had with other Departments? Has he looked to the private sector to help to supplement the funding that is required to carry out the will of the House?

Mr Michael McGimpsey: I do not want to go over old ground as far as setting the tone is concerned. However, I could repeat what I have just said to Mr Gibson. It is tiresome of Mr Poots to repeat the same shibboleth, which I reject entirely, and with which any reasonable person would not agree. He said that I attacked the DUP. I neither attacked nor criticised the DUP. We shall take the matter forward in a spirit of goodwill. Mr Poots also accused me of doing nothing. I have listed what we have done since July 2001.

Mr Edwin Poots: Nothing has been done about a memento.

Mr Michael McGimpsey: I have explained the situation concerning a memento. I believe that every schoolchild has the right to receive a souvenir. I have told the Member that we are considering that. I have even managed to bring in some examples to show him how seriously we are taking the matter and how we are addressing it. We have received samples and quotations.
The memento could take the form of a CD-ROM or a bursary for every school. The latter would provide a legacy to allow each school to determine, in its own creative and imaginative way, how it can provide children with a souvenir to make the event memorable. It has been proposed also that linkages be created through the Museums and Galleries of Northern Ireland (MAGNI) to provide educational packages. That mechanism was used previously for the ‘Kings in Conflict’ exhibition, at which educational packs were provided for schoolchildren.
There is a range of ideas. However, the important thing is that we leave a legacy. That is one of Her Majesty’s requirements. That legacy must be of value and should follow the themes of the Golden Jubilee. It should be relevant, appropriate, leave a legacy and be kept within a reasonable cost. It should follow the themes of celebration, giving thanks, service, community, looking forward as well as looking back, and the Commonwealth. The ongoing discussions must determine whether that type of memento or souvenir fulfils those aforementioned requirements, or whether it should take another form. I have mentioned already some of the ideas that we are considering through our own jubilee advisory group, which was established last year and which is advising the Department and me on the matter.

Mrs Iris Robinson: The Minister would agree with me that it would be unfair to deprive the vast majority of schoolchildren in Northern Ireland of a memento, when they would welcome one. I say "vast majority", because the gauge is that some children might not accept it.
The Minister mentioned certain events, which included the construction of a special garden in Newtownards designed for curriculum-based activities that will also cater for people with special needs, the elderly and pre-school children. I welcome that permanent feature in the constituency, which I represent in the House and in another place. Can the Minister provide me with more details of the location, and how the land was made available for that purpose?

Mr Michael McGimpsey: I agree entirely that it would be wrong to deprive schoolchildren of a memento because of the objections of others. As I have already indicated, schoolchildren have a right to a permanent souvenir.
Several schemes have been proposed for Newtownards. Mrs Robinson represents Newtownards in the House and in another place. I live in Newtownards and have done so all my life. I am happy to share the information that I have on Newtownards with Mrs Robinson.

Mr Ian Paisley Jnr: Most Members on this side of the House are astounded by the Minister’s revisionism, given his comments in the Chamber last week. He did not keep his counsel as he claims to have done in his statement. Last week he made a comment that unfortunately cast a sad tone on what should have been a happier topic. The comments on page 1 of his statement further cheapened and party-politicised the matter. Only those who freed Mountbatten’s killers could, in the same breath, profess that their loyalty is better than that of others.
In the depths of his statement, the Minister refers to "creativity and imagination". Does he agree that the opportunity for a more tangible and permanent tribute should be seized with both hands? Does he agree that a permanent motor sport racetrack or, as the Assembly agreed last week, a permanent memento that could be put in the hands of all the children of Northern Ireland, would be a more fitting tribute to Her Majesty and her gracious service to this nation than the one-off, short-term, one-day events that are planned?

Mr Michael McGimpsey: I am unsure whether the applicants for funding for what Mr Paisley Jnr describes as "one-off, short-term events" would agree that those events are worthless. As for revisionism, Mr Paisley Jnr is a master of revisionism. He suggested that there be a permanent souvenir, but, as I repeated several times this morning, one of Her Majesty’s stipulations is that there be no undue public expenditure for the programme.
A racetrack, which was suggested, would cost many millions of pounds. To build a racetrack would create strong reservations in the palace, because that would contradict the stipulation that there be no undue expenditure. The Department is considering the need for a racetrack through another device, the strategy for motor sport racing, which will be published later this year. That will determine the needs of the sport and whether the sport needs a purpose-built racetrack or the refurbishment of existing racetracks.
I have stated my position about the provision of a permanent souvenir. That should happen in accordance with the stipulations laid down by the palace and Whitehall Departments, and I will adhere to those stipulations. I need comment no further.

Mr Sammy Wilson: I hope that we can rely more on the Minister’s comments today than on his statement. On page 1 he states that he kept a dignified silence last week. However, Hansard reports half a column of speech by the Minister, part of which is a political attack on a motion that was tabled in a dignified way by my Colleague Maurice Morrow. The Minister’s words were not memorable, but I thought that at least he would remember that he spoke, even if no one else did. He has been around the House today on the subject of a personal memento for schoolchildren. The House, by a majority, passed the motion that there should be a personal memento. The Minister has spoken about the costs of a memento. He spoke about providing CD-ROMs and other types of personal mementoes for schools.
Will the Minister accept the will of the House that each child who wishes it should have a permanent and lasting memento? Is he so in hock to the Minister of Education, whom he seems quite happy to swing with and play hokey-cokey with, that he will not do anything to offend him, and hence will try to avoid the question of a personal memento? As far as the total cost is concerned, a figure of £200,000 has been given, but other events are mentioned that have not been costed. What is the total cost and total budget in the Minister’s Department for jubilee events?

Mr Michael McGimpsey: Sammy Wilson, not for the first time, is one of the Members who did not get beyond page 1 of my statement. He said that my words last week were not memorable; clearly they were, because he remembered them.
With regard to the memento, I have covered this issue over and over again. The question was not forthcoming so I had to ask it myself, once, twice, three times, and I will do it again: "Does the Minister agree that all schoolchildren should have the right to a permanent souvenir of the Jubilee?" The answer is yes. What type of memento or permanent souvenir should that be? We are working on that, and I will bring forward ideas to the House in due course. We have set up a jubilee advisory group, and it is important that the views of people who are working voluntarily to support the jubilee should be listened to.
I have indicated, ad nauseam, what the budget line is for non-lottery funding, and lottery funding is a matter for the lottery distributors. The scheme is called Awards for All, and there is no fixed closing date, so groups can continue to apply. I repeat for those who missed it — and I am repeating it for the third, fourth or fifth time — that I can make a strong case for further resources for non-lottery funding. That will allow people who have a moral objection to the lottery, because of its connections with gambling, to come forward and not be disadvantaged.

Budget Bill: Consideration Stage

Mr Speaker: No amendments have been tabled. Therefore I propose, by leave of the House, to group the seven clauses, followed by the four schedules and the long title.
Clauses 1 to 7 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedules 1 to 4 agreed to.
Long title agreed to.

Mr Speaker: The Bill stands referred to the Speaker.

Personal Social Services (Preserved Rights) Bill: Second Stage

Ms Bairbre de Brún: I beg to move
That the Second Stage of the Personal Social Services (Preserved Rights) Bill (NIA 4/01) be agreed.
Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. Molaim go dtugtar a Dhara Céim don Bhille Seirbhísí Sóisialta Pearsanta (Cearta Forchoimeádta).
Is í aidhm an Bhille seo an 1,700 conaitheoir i gcúram cónaitheach san earnáil neamhspleách agus i dtithe altranais ó roimh Aibreán 1993 a thabhairt faoi na socruithe bhainistíocht cúraim chéanna le cónaitheoirí eile tí cúraim.
Mar a chuir mé in iúl do Chomhaltaí inné, mhol an Coimisiún Ríoga ar Chúram Fadtéarmach do Dhaoine Scothaosta go mbreithneodh an Rialtas ar chóir íocaíochtaí ceart forchoimeádta i leas sóisialta a thabhairt faoin chóras mhaoiniú cúraim phobail atá ann ó 1993; nó an bhféadfaí teacht ar réiteach éigin eile le haghaidh a thabhairt ar easnamh mhaoiniú an ghrúpa sin. Chomh maith le comhchomhairle an Choimisiúin Ríoga, chuathas i gcomhchomhairle go háitiúil faoi na roghanna. Bhíothas den bharúil tríd is tríd gur chóir go n-aistreofaí freagracht as cásanna ceart forchoimeádta go gnáthshocruithe bhainistíocht cúraim na seirbhísí sláinte agus sóisialta.
The aim of the Bill is to bring approximately 1,700 residents in independent sector residential care and nursing homes since before April 1993 into the same care management arrangements as other care home residents.
When the current community care arrangements were introduced in 1993, some 9,000 people in independent sector residential care were exempt from new health and social services funding and care management arrangements. Instead, they acquired a preserved right to an enhanced rate of income support to pay for their residential accommodation, and health and social services boards and trusts were barred from taking responsibility for the care management arrangements for these residents in all but a few limited circumstances.
I informed Members yesterday that the Royal Commission on Long Term Care for the Elderly recommended that the Government consider whether preserved rights payments and social security should be brought within the post-1993 system of community care funding, or whether some other solution could be found to address the shortfall in funding experienced by that group. As well as the Royal Commission’s consultation, further local consultation on the options was carried out. Overall opinion supported a transfer of responsibility for the preserved rights cases into normal health and social services care management arrangements.
The Bill is being brought forward to transfer responsibility for the preserved rights cases into health and social services trusts’ normal care management arrangements from April 2002. It is considered inequitable that these residents should be treated differently from those who entered the care system after April 1993. The Bill provides that where a trust has been unable to assess a person’s need for services before the appointed day, it assumes responsibility from that day until it makes whatever arrangements are considered necessary, or until the person notifies the trust that he or she does not want to be provided with services. Regulations will also be brought forward to enable trusts to recover all or part of any payments made in these circumstances.
In relation to the disclosure of information between the Social Security Agency and the boards and trusts, the Bill specifies the type of information that can be shared, and with whom. That exchange will enable more effective identification of the relevant residents and ensure that when the trusts assume their responsibilities, no one slips through the net.
The Bill also contains a provision requiring the Department for Social Development to exercise powers under the relevant social security legislation so that provisions relating to higher rates of income support and jobseeker’s allowance, payable to people with preserved rights, will cease to have effect on the relevant day.
The final clauses of the Bill contain technical and formal provisions relating to the commencement and interpretation of the Bill. That will enable the Department, by regulations, to make any necessary or consequential provision.
In summary, the Bill is targeted at ensuring that those individuals in care homes since before April 1993, and in receipt of higher rates of social security benefits to pay for their accommodation, are brought into the same health and social services care, assessment, management and funding arrangements that apply to other home care residents. These residents will, therefore, for the first time, receive an appropriate care assessment to determine the level of care required and whether their current arrangements are fulfilling those requirements, or if some further, or different, support is needed. They will have the benefit of health and social services contract and care management arrangements for the first time, and they will also have flexibility to consider and explore other care management options, if deemed more appropriate.
Members may have points to raise, and I will deal with them, if I can, in the course of the debate.

Mr Speaker: I have received no requests to speak and will put the question to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved:
That the Second Stage of the Personal Social Services (Preserved Rights) Bill (NIA4/01) be agreed.

Mr Speaker: The House will now, by leave, suspend and resume at 2.00 pm with a statement from the Chair about the resignation of a Deputy Speaker.
The sitting was suspended at 12.29 pm.
On resuming (Mr Speaker in the Chair) —
2.00pm

Sir John Gorman: Resignation as Deputy Speaker

Mr Speaker: It is with much regret that I advise the House that Sir John Gorman has decided to step down as Deputy Speaker of the Assembly. He will, of course, continue to serve the Assembly in his capacity as an Ulster Unionist Assembly Member for North Down. I would like to take this opportunity to pay my own tribute to Sir John and to convey to him my gratitude for his assistance to me as Speaker.
For almost two years, Sir John has made his own distinguished contribution to the Chair of the Assembly. His dignity, patience and good humour, as well as his firmness when required, have added considerably to the conduct of debate in the Chamber. I know that I speak also for the other Deputy Speakers, Mr Donovan McClelland and Ms Jane Morrice, when I say that he has been to all of us a most congenial, thoughtful and supportive Colleague.
Sir John had wide practical experience of chairmanship, which equipped him well for his role as a Deputy Speaker. From 1996 to 1998 Sir John was Chairman of the Northern Ireland Forum for Political Dialogue, which was established as part of the negotiations that led to the Belfast Agreement. However, that was merely the most recent and perhaps the most public of his many roles of public service, which extend right back to his front line and highly decorated military service in the Irish Guards during the second world war.
Sir John’s first experience of this House was when his father brought him to its opening in 1932. Many Members will be aware that Sir John is now the Father of the House. That is a particularly fitting title for him. He is the Father of the House not only in age, but, more importantly, in dignity and distinction. He has earned the respect of Members from all sides and, in his capacity as Deputy Speaker, has entertained many guests from overseas and represented the Assembly, most notably, perhaps, at the historic Tynwald ceremony in the Isle of Man. Sir John has been a splendid ambassador for the Northern Ireland Assembly. I am most grateful to him for his help and support and for his friendship, which I value greatly.
Sir John, I thank you, and I wish you all that is good.

Rt Hon David Trimble: I associate myself and my Colleagues with all the Speaker’s comments about Sir John — his service, his character and the manner in which he discharged his duties here.
Six years ago, when several of my Colleagues and I approached Sir John with a view to his developing a political career, he had a distinguished record in public service, the army, the police, aviation and the Housing Executive. He was replete with honours and age. Nonetheless, he was prepared to start an entirely new venture by coming forward as an Ulster Unionist elected representative in the Forum. He found himself pitched immediately into the deep end in the Chair, where, I have the temerity to suggest, he had even less experience than you, Mr Speaker, when you found yourself in a similar situation. Despite that, he conducted himself admirably, won the respect of all those who participated in the Forum and did an extremely good job.
He continued that service as Deputy Speaker in a way that has earned him the good opinion of all Members. I would be surprised if any Member did not have a warm feeling for him and did not, rightly, regard him as a friend.
Members understand the circumstances that have led Sir John Gorman to stand down as Deputy Speaker. He is to have a minor operation in the not-too-distant future, for which the House conveys its best wishes to Sir John. The Assembly looks forward to his return to continue the excellent service that he has given to the House and to the people of Northern Ireland.

Mr Mark Durkan: Mr Speaker, you spoke in a fitting and effective way, on behalf of the House, in paying tribute to the enormous contribution that Sir John Gorman has made to the Assembly. It is just one further instalment in his distinguished contribution to public life, both to the Assembly and to the people of Northern Ireland. Sir John brought colour and humour to the Chair. He is a man with no sides to him — he deals with everyone in a straightforward manner. He is a man of honour in his dealings with all parties and with all Members of the House.
I shall miss him in the Chair. I have missed him in the Chair in the past, especially when he has been asking me questions from the Floor. He will be missed in the future. Members understand and appreciate the circumstances that force him to concentrate more on looking after himself and his constituents than on looking after all of us in the Chamber. We appreciate Sir John’s distinctive contribution. We look forward to continuing to work with him and to enjoying his full membership of the House.

Rev Dr Ian Paisley: I wish to associate myself with your remarks, Mr Speaker, and those of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister. It is a long time since I first met Sir John in the famous town of Ballymena, which he knew very well. He was a distinguished police officer there. However, he never had the privilege of arresting me.
I knew him well. I remember when he was chairman of the Housing Executive. He visited a certain housing estate. Many of his co-religionists lived on that housing estate. We had an interesting time. Many times, we have exchanged some of the wonderful things that were said to him as chairman of the Housing Executive and some of the more wonderful things that were said about me as Member of Parliament for the area. That was an interesting time.
I sat under his chairmanship of the Northern Ireland Forum for Political Dialogue with great pleasure. I remember the day when he told us that, in his time as a police officer, he always liked to have the sun shining into the eyes of those whom he was questioning. He looked down at the DUP side of the House and said that the sun is shining in the eyes of those men today. I never forgot that.
Sir John did extremely well as Chairman of the Forum. The DUP had its differences with him, as it has had in his time as a Deputy Speaker of the Assembly. However, there has never been any personal friction between us. We have had a warm, personal relationship. The House will be thinking of him and praying for him in the near future. I hope that, as Father of the House, he will be in the Chamber in the coming days to speak a fatherly word to us. The scriptures say that the Father chasteneth thee. Sir John did not chasten us too often. We respected the hand that wielded the cane.

Mr Alex Maskey: I endorse the comments that have been expressed to Sir John and wish him well on behalf of Sinn Féin. The party expresses its gratitude for the sense of duty with which Sir John Gorman has carried out his work in the Chamber and in the Assembly since its inception. I agree with the Speaker’s comments that when Sir John Gorman has met people from outside the Building, such as visitors from overseas, he has always represented the entire Assembly with aplomb, dignity, balance and not without a little style of his own. I share in the sentiments that wish him well in the near future. We are disappointed that he is unable to finish this session as Deputy Speaker. He has done the job to the very best of his ability and has treated everyone here with the respect that they all deserve as elected representatives. I hope that he will be able to spend a little more time as an elected representative and, of course, with his family.

Mr David Ford: I also associate my party and myself with the sentiments expressed by you, Mr Speaker, and by other Members. It is unnecessary to repeat all that has been said about Sir John to endorse the tributes that others have paid. His work as a Deputy Speaker of the Assembly, which follows on from his work in the Forum, was a cap to a distinguished career of public service, a career that has been outlined in considerable detail.
Members of the Alliance Party opposition awkward squad on these Benches created certain difficulties for Sir John, as indeed they did for others in the Chair at times. Unfailingly, he responded to us with the courtesy, good humour and good manners that we know to be Sir John. I trust that he never took it personally — he certainly never gave the impression that he did. He always gave the impression that he could deal with whatever brickbats were thrown at him in a way utterly befitting of any Deputy Speaker of any body.
On behalf of the Alliance Party, I add our good wishes to Sir John for the future. We shall miss him in the Chair, but we shall enjoy his contributions from the Back Benches.

Mr Cedric Wilson: On behalf of the Northern Ireland Unionist Party, I identify with the comments that have been made about Sir John on his retirement as Deputy Speaker. I got to know Sir John at the Forum. Indeed, my lasting memory of him was on a visit to the European Parliament in Strasbourg. We had the pleasure of accompanying him on the coach from the airport to Strasbourg. Sir John gave a running commentary about his wartime exploits, when the Germans were routed from the city of Strasbourg during the second world war, to which he made an amazing contribution. It was a memorable trip and coloured my view of the calibre and stature of Sir John Gorman. I wish him a quiet time on the Back Benches and all the very best for his future in the Assembly.

Mr David Ervine: I concur with everything that has been said. It seems to me that Sir John Gorman’s heart is good. It is not that long ago that I met him in politics. His dignity and integrity are absolute. I consider him, if he will allow me the luxury, not only to be a Colleague, but a friend. In many of the comments that I have heard, whether in public or in private, he is eminently a man of reconciliation.
I am not about to commiserate his passing from the Deputy Speaker’s Chair, other than to celebrate that I have known him as a Colleague, and I know that he will be on the Back Benches. As the Father of the House, he may have some advice for us all.

Ms Jane Morrice: On behalf of the Women’s Coalition, I voice our appreciation for Sir John’s role as Deputy Speaker. He brought dignity and honour to the Chair, and he will be sorely missed. While we appreciate him for his work, we welcome him to the Back Benches, both as Father of the House and as a friend. The most fitting tribute to him is that there are absolutely no back doors in Sir John.

Mr Robert McCartney: I join with others who have expressed good wishes for Sir John. I first made his acquaintance many years ago, perhaps as many as 55 years ago — when I did not know really who Sir John was — as a reader of a boys’ magazine called ‘The Champion’. The magazine had little vignettes of people who had done very special things in the war, and one of them featured John Gorman. I am not sure whether he was Captain or Lieutenant John Gorman, but he was certainly in charge of a tank. He came to the conclusion that his tank was not quite as well armed as the German Tiger tank and if he stood off he would not have been here in any other form. So, according to the account in ‘The Champion’, he ran his tank forward, jammed the gun of the much heavier tank so that it could not revolve and blow him to smithereens, and thus escaped to enjoy longevity and a period as Deputy Speaker of this House.
Having escaped from the Axis powers into another — some people might say — nest of vipers — [Interruption].

A Member: Speak for yourself.

Mr Robert McCartney: Well, some people are more viperous than others. [Laughter].
Having survived all that, he has entertained us with his companionship and, I have to say, a certain degree of eccentricity from time to time, but all of it has been in good part, and we shall certainly miss him in his role as Deputy Speaker. I have no doubt, however, that he will continue to puzzle many of us from the Back Benches, and we wish him everything of good fortune in the future.

Sir John Gorman: Mr Speaker and leaders of all the parties here, I cannot tell you how much all this means to me. I sometimes wonder, when I listen to all these things, who it is that you are talking about. Some of you have used a little more hyperbole than I deserve.
I am particularly pleased today that I have my dear wife with me — she is up in the Gallery — because she has had to suffer an awful lot of inconvenience, irritation and possibly boredom in listening to my tales of all of you when I got home. I promise you that, generally speaking, you all came out of it pretty well, and I am sure that she will think of you all now as the rather backward, bashful but affectionate crowd that you really are — and you really are, as far as I am concerned.
I think that you should know that today I met the surgeon who is going to do the great job on me, and — could you believe it — he has the splendid name of Gladstone. I asked him about home rule, and he looked a bit abashed because he is an Englishman — but he was pretty bullish about my chances, and I hope that I will be able to be back with you all in a matter of possibly eight or nine weeks.
I really feel that nothing that I could say would be appropriate at all to end my little thank you to you, other than to say how very happy I have been in the Ulster Unionist Party and how much I have been given support and attention by all its members, in particular by its leader, and to say also of the Speaker that we are very lucky indeed to have such a man at our head in conducting our affairs. Every one of you has been a friend as well as a Colleague to me, and I thank you. As Betty Boothroyd said a little time ago — and I am not going to quite say it — "time is up". Thank you. [Applause].

Mr Speaker: To Sir John and Lady Gorman, our very best wishes, and our prayers for Mr Gladstone and the deftness of his hands.

General Amnesty for Offences for Those "On The Run"

Mr Speaker: I wish to advise the House that, as three amendments have been selected and published on the Marshalled List, we shall have to address the question of the amendments, how to handle them appropriately and the time limits.
There are three amendments; the first is in the name of members of the SDLP; the second is in the name of members of the DUP; and the third is in the name of members of the Ulster Unionist Party. They are in that order because that is the order in which they come in the motion. If amendment No 1 is moved, debated, voted upon and passed, it will amend the motion as outlined. Amendment No 2 can then be taken and if it were passed would amend the motion as amended by amendment No 1. If amendment No 2 is passed, amendment No 3 falls because the part of the motion to which it refers will no longer be in place. I remind Members of that so that, when they are considering how to vote, they will understand those facts.
I propose to allocate 10 minutes to the Member who is moving the motion and six minutes for the winding-up. Each person moving an amendment will have seven minutes to open and five minutes for the winding-up. All other Members will have five minutes in which to speak to ensure that as many Members as possible can speak in the time-limited debate. However, I realise that many Members may wish to speak for longer and that many Members who might like to will not be able to speak.

Mrs Eileen Bell: I beg to move
That this Assembly considers that the Government’s proposal for dealing with those "on the run" constitutes a general amnesty for offences committed prior to April 1998, goes well beyond both the letter and spirit of the Good Friday Agreement and is inconsistent with both justice and international practice. This Assembly believes that the minimum requirement consistent with the agreement is that those wishing to avail of this measure should be required to acknowledge their guilt in court and be released on licence. This Assembly further believes that the Government should demand guarantees that those "exiled" by the paramilitaries can return to Northern Ireland in safety before proceeding with this measure.
I speak as a member of the Alliance Party and as someone who once worked with exiles.
The Government’s proposals for dealing with so-called "on the runs" constitute a general amnesty for all offences committed by paramilitaries associated with organisations that are recognised as observing a ceasefire before April 1998.
The British and Irish Governments introduced the proposal following the Weston Park talks last year. The stated intention is not to pursue outstanding prosecutions. However, that term has not been defined, nor has a list of those eligible been published. In practice, people who have not yet been prosecuted for an offence are technically on the run, irrespective of whether they are in or outside Northern Ireland or whether the authorities are suspicious of them. Such distinctions will not stand up, even if the Government seek to make them do so. It is a general amnesty.
In a statement to the House of Commons on 24 October 2001, the Secretary of State committed the Government to implementing this package, including the amnesty proposals, in its entirety. He stated that it was the Government’s intention to address the issue by March 2002. However, they have not yet published the full details of the proposals.
It is opportune, therefore, that the issue be debated now, and I am happy to note that the other parties have finally wakened up to the issue. I may not agree with their amendments, but, nonetheless, I welcome them. My Colleague David Ford will deal with them later. It is also opportune to be able to make clear how the proposal will cause enormous hurt to the victims of numerous atrocities and undermine both the rule of law and any sense of justice.
In comparison, it is important to note that all prisoners who have been released were convicted in a court of law and thus had their deeds publicly noted. Furthermore, they are released on a licence that can be revoked if further offences are committed. The Alliance Party recognises that the issue of people "on the run" must be addressed. However, the current proposals are not a logical extension of the agreement; they are a quantum leap forward.
No one has been brought to account for a great number of the atrocities of the past 30 years. The interests and views of victims have been neglected during this process, and the failure to seek prosecutions will only increase victims’ sense of hurt. However, the most stunning aspect of these proposals is probably their complete failure to address the situation of those exiled from Northern Ireland by paramilitaries from all sides. Those who have been exiled are not facing conviction and imprisonment, but a death sentence.
In addressing this complicated and sensitive subject, I quote the Prime Minister’s words from the debate in the House of Commons last week.
"If we are genuinely concerned, as we should be, about putting the past to rest in Northern Ireland, one major part of that is people who were intimidated out of the country — the so-called exiles. Of course they should be allowed to return in peace. That, I think, would be a proper part of any significant undertaking in relation to the peace process. If the parties really support the peace process, they should support every dimension of it."
There was a general consensus in the debate in Westminster Hall that the issues must be dealt with quickly. In addition, several Members expressed concern about the fact that the issue of exiles had been allowed to drift. As my friend and former peace train colleague Prof Liam Kennedy said
" We need to break the silence, at all levels of society here".
As with the issue of victims, the two Governments have let paramilitary groups and their related political parties off the hook of playing their part to ensure that violence of all kinds ceases. If we all support the democratic peace process, we must work together as colleagues to eradicate all fear and intimidation from society. We must join with organisations such as the Maranatha Community and NIACRO, with its Base2 programme, to encourage Parliament to force concerted action. That would enable families that have been expelled or forced out of their homes and who wish to return to do so safely. I have worked with all those organisations in different ways, and I know the trauma, heartbreak and terror that families and young men have suffered and are suffering still. In the main they were not expelled because a community wanted it, as has been alleged. People were exiled because certain members of a community wanted it. These people see themselves as law enforcers and appoint themselves as such. They make the decisions and carry out the punishments, which, as we know, include horrific beatings followed by exile.
It is not right to say, as a Sinn Feín Member did last week, that if we had an acceptable police force, we would not have this problem. In my experience, paramilitary groups made their decisions about many youths who were already being dealt with by the police and the legal system, decisions made solely to demonstrate their influence and power in the communities.
If Sinn Feín is really concerned about policing, it has the solution in its hands. Its members should join the Policing Board and help to address the wrongs that they perceive, instead of standing outside and complaining.
(Mr Deputy Speaker [Mr McClelland] in the Chair)
As Members know, I come from west Belfast. It is only since the Provisional IRA began to exert its illegal influence that the RUC started to be discredited there. The police are not, and were not, perfect. However, they are making strong attempts to deal with the problem, while Sinn Feín and others show no willingness to amend or change their views, work with others or attempt to achieve a balanced and efficient police service to which we can all subscribe.
The Maranatha Community and NIACRO and its Base2 programme can all provide graphic evidence of the trauma and hardship that exiles experience in Northern Ireland and abroad. We read about it every day in the newspapers. We must take note of the overwhelming evidence and listen to their advice that people at all levels must work together to solve the problem. We must also note the finding of the Northern Ireland Affairs Select Committee’s report ‘Relocation following Paramilitary Intimidation’ that a greater degree of focus and co-ordination is needed on the real problem faced by those who deal with people who have been forced from their homes by paramilitary intimidation.
The action plan of the Northern Ireland Executive must be expedited immediately. Furthermore, the British Government must no longer only talk about the problem; they must act to ensure that paramilitaries and their related political parties are involved fully in the process of halting their vile, violent practices.
The number of citizens exiled is increasing, and that is unacceptable. A progressive step would be to make the necessary finance available to develop programmes such as the NIACRO programme for exiles. There must be an end to kangaroo courts and informal justice. I hope that the Security Minister, Jane Kennedy, is right in saying that with goodwill and support from all sides, particularly for the police in Northern Ireland, we will turn the tide. The tide must be turned before it is too late. I would remind her of this, when she speaks against deals being made; deals were made throughout the Good Friday Agreement talks on, for example, policing and ex-prisoners. It was felt that those deals were necessary at that time so that agreement could be reached and peace achieved.
The Minister’s comments against the linkage of those two issues would make sense if both were to be given equal priority, which is clearly not the case at the moment. That issue is important as the Maranatha Community stated in item 16 of its report:
"It is now a widely-held belief amongst those caught up at street-level in the ongoing troubles that no serious progress can be made towards peace in Northern Ireland until this problem of exiles is addressed. It is a festering wound which can no longer be ignored."
On a personal note, my husband and I were exiled twice, and not because of antisocial acts, unless a mixed marriage or helping different communities to work together amounts to antisocial behaviour.
It would be incredible if the Government proceeded with an amnesty for paramilitaries before first ensuring that those paramilitaries lift the threats against those whom they have exiled. It is not too late for the Government to reconsider their proposals and to put them forward in a manner that might just be more acceptable — although I am not sure about that. If the Government must proceed down this road, they must at least require those seeking an amnesty to apply individually, appear before a court and admit to the offences where appropriate. They then could be placed on licence with suspended sentences, thereby providing safeguards in the event of further offences — the same system used for ex-prisoners. This approach would be more consistent with the agreement and would provide some small sense of justice and consolation for the victims.

Mr Donovan McClelland: Will the Member please draw her remarks to a close?

Mrs Eileen Bell: I sincerely hope that the Government do not ignore our debate, the debate at Westminster, or the report. Violence must no longer be a festering wound; instead it should become a dim memory.

Mr Alban Maginness: I beg to move amendment No 1: In line 2, delete "a general" and insert "an"; In line 2, after "for" insert "certain"; In line 3, delete after "goes" to "spirit" and insert "beyond the requirements"; and in line 4, delete all after the first "and" to end, and insert:
"that there should be further consideration of a mechanism whereby all those who were guilty of human rights abuses, from whatever quarter, including persons referred to as being ‘on the run’, should acknowledge and give a full account of their actions and recognise the hurt caused to and being endured by victims, families and the community. The Assembly further believes that those exiled by paramilitary organisations should be able to return to Northern Ireland without threat to their welfare by paramilitaries."
The SDLP has long been an advocate for human rights, and will continue to be so. It does not see human rights as some sort of cynical political tool, but rather as something precious that must be established firmly in the community and embedded in the very foundations of our new political order. Human rights must be applied universally, not selectively. Everybody is entitled to enjoy human rights and both state and citizen are obliged to uphold and respect them.
Thus, when paramilitaries offend basic human rights by killing or injuring people, they, like the state when it offends human rights, are obliged to acknowledge and give a full account of their actions to society at large and to victims and their families in particular. It is not for Republican paramilitaries to ignore their human rights abuses and seek a selective, limited amnesty exclusive to themselves. They are not entitled to benefit from a process from which other people are excluded. The origins of this "on the run" amnesty proposal is shrouded in secrecy, but it would appear that it arose around May 2000 when the Republican movement was engaged in a separate negotiation process with the British Government on decommissioning.
What was agreed was unclear. However, last year, at Weston Park, the issue became public and part of a side bar deal between Republicans and the British and Irish Governments. The SDLP was not party to that deal, and it advised both Governments that it was extraneous to the Good Friday Agreement. It was a separate deal by Republicans for the benefit of Republicans. It was a self-serving deal to satisfy their internal political needs.
The selfishness and the arrogance of the Republican movement are exemplified in that deal. The movement is impervious to the greater needs of the whole community. We should be victim-centred. Victims in society must be acknowledged. The victims — Catholic and Protestant — of Republican violence must be acknowledged and affirmed. This proposal does nothing to acknowledge those victims and their deep hurt, a hurt that continues to pain many people.
That pain will continue to hurt unless there is some form of closure. That is why the SDLP amendment asks that further consideration be given to a mechanism for human rights abusers to acknowledge and give full account of their actions to victims and to the community. It is to be hoped that such a mechanism can acknowledge victims and can serve as a form of public accountability for all in society and for all human rights abusers. It is to be hoped that closure can then be achieved so that the victims — some of whom are alienated from the peace process and from the new political structures — can embrace the new political dispensation.
It is surely right that those who have been exiled by paramilitary groups, especially by Republican paramilitary groups, should be able to return to their homes and their homeland without fear, without let or hindrance. If paramilitaries seek an amnesty for themselves, surely it is common justice to grant an amnesty to those who were expelled by paramilitaries? Not to do so is rank hypocrisy.
Leaving aside the issue of amnesty, and leaving aside the motion tabled by the Alliance Party, the issue of the exiled stands on its own. Those who have been exiled by illegal paramilitary groups have the right to return at any time under the new political dispensation. To deny them that right is to deny them their human rights, because it is a violation of human rights to prevent people from enjoying their home and homeland. Even if the motion had not been moved, a fundamental injustice has been carried out against the exiled. It is right and proper that the House disapproves of that. Those who are responsible for expelling those people have a duty to say to them — especially in the present political circumstances — "Yes, come home. Yes, you have a right to come home, and, yes, you will be unharmed. We, the political representatives of the Republican — or Loyalist — movement, guarantee you that right to come home and live free from harm."

Mr Ian Paisley Jnr: I beg to move amendment No 2: Delete all after "1998" and insert
"and calls on the Government to:
(i) withdraw the offer of amnesty;
(ii) deliver the complete decommissioning of terrorist weapons; and
(iii) bring to justice those responsible for terror in Northern Ireland."
At the outset of this debate, Mrs Eileen Bell, the deputy leader of the Alliance Party, said it was absolutely incredible that the Government would bring forward the proposal that they have. The Alliance Party’s motion is absolutely incredible. It is both contradictory and unworkable. That is why the DUP has tabled its amendment.
The motion claims that the Government’s proposal goes beyond the Belfast Agreement. However, it goes on to endorse what the Belfast Agreement has done and to endorse the proposal that the Alliance Party says goes beyond the Belfast Agreement. Despite saying that it is inconsistent with justice, the Alliance Party goes ahead and supports the proposal. It supports it by suggesting that the way round it is probably to inflict another injustice and turn the due process of law and order on its head.
The suggestion that criminals should confess guilt and then be sentenced and licensed without a trial is inconsistent with any notion of justice or fair play, no matter who those people happen to be. The biggest contradiction came when Eileen Bell told us of the problems that she personally went through, with which we sympathise. She then suggested that we go to the people who put her and her family through that and seek an assurance from those criminals that they will now be nice people. We cannot, and should not, support such a proposal.
The amendment put forward by the SDLP still proposes an amnesty. The DUP opposes it for that reason. Mr Alban Maginness said that the amnesty was a "sidebar deal". I studied the papers emanating from Weston Park, and I did not see one word of condemnation from the SDLP of the communiqué issued by the two Governments at that time. If it was a sidebar deal, why did that party not condemn it at that time? Why did it then want to be associated with that sidebar deal? That is exactly what it did.
My party’s amendment is consistent with the principles of justice and fairness. It seeks to withdraw the shameful offer of amnesty, to deliver complete decommissioning of terrorist weapons and to bring to justice those responsible for terror in Northern Ireland. No one in the Chamber should be opposed to those principles. It is in the interests of the people of Northern Ireland to ensure that people are brought to justice for their heinous crimes. It is in their interest that we should not have a "get out of jail free" card for people who have not yet even been convicted for those crimes. It is workable, and it should be backed by every right-thinking person in the Chamber. To do otherwise is a further concession to terrorism in Northern Ireland.
An amendment will be proposed by the leader of the Official Unionist Party. He has little backing in the Chamber today. Although the first sentence of the UUP amendment backs part of the DUP’s amendment, it is a denial that the hand of that party’s leader is all over the offer that was made at Weston Park in the first instance. Let us face it: whether that party likes it or not, the amnesty is consistent with the spirit of an agreement that lets people out of jail free.
The people who would benefit from this are the same sort of people who tried to perpetrate an atrocious act in Coalisland yesterday. According to one newspaper, they got out of jail free in the first instance under the terms of the Belfast Agreement. The people who voted for that should hang their heads in shame today when they consider that the people whom they let out of jail free are probably engaged in continual terrorism.
This amnesty is a direct result of the Weston Park talks. David Trimble went to those talks claiming that decommissioning was the only issue to be resolved, yet he came away from those talks with proposals that weaken policing, were designed to demolish security and, most obnoxious of all, put on the table an offer of an amnesty to further terrorism.
Let us look briefly at the communiqué that those parties supported and did not condemn at the time. The British Government said that both Governments recognised that there was an issue to be addressed with the completion of the early release of prisoners. That means that it was not complete when the prisoners got out. It had to be addressed because other prisoners had to get out. The communiqué went on to say that only those organisations signed up to ceasefires should benefit. Ceasefires have been meaningless. Since 1998, 99 people have been murdered by the same paramilitaries who are supposed to be signed up to a ceasefire.
According to the communiqué, the general amnesty would be a natural development. What would that natural development be? People engaged in terrorism and not yet convicted should be, in the words of the communiqué, no longer pursued. That is what they signed up to, and that is what their fingerprints are all over. Not only are Mr Trimble’s fingerprints over it, his friend, Mr Donaldson, is also culpable because he was there as well. They signed up to it, agreed it and supported it at that time.
Let us consider the people who would benefit from such a terrible scheme: Charlie Caufield, who was wanted in connection with the Enniskillen bomb; Michael Rogan, who was wanted for the Lisburn bomb; Michael Dixon, who was wanted for the 1996 mortar bomb attack in Germany; Liam Averill, the well-known transvestite who escaped from the Maze Prison; Owen Carron; Robert Campbell; and Dermot Finucane.
My Colleague reminds me that the La Mon House Hotel bombing took place 24 years ago this Sunday. A Member of the House was questioned in relation to that bombing. Nothing would now come of that because all those heinous acts of terrorism would be put to one side.
I must remind the House that in the ‘Belfast Telegraph’ on 1 August 2001 the leader of the Ulster Unionist Party said that the document’s other proposals would be irrelevant in the absence of decommissioning. Given that there has been no decommissioning, I hope that people realise that David Trimble was wrong then when he said that this would be irrelevant. It is not irrelevant; it has come to fruition now, and I hope that the House supports the amendment.

Rt Hon David Trimble: I beg to move amendment No 3: In line 5, delete all the words after "this Assembly" and insert:
"calls on the Government to withdraw the offer of amnesty, insists that the Government adheres fully to the terms and principles of the Belfast Agreement and calls on the paramilitary-related parties to fulfil their commitments to the Mitchell principles of peace and non-violence."
I congratulate the Alliance Party in tabling the motion and for bringing the matter before the House. This is a serious matter. I will disagree with some of the terms of the motion, but that does not detract from the fact that it has brought this serious matter before the House. Other Members will also appreciate the significance of having a situation where the Alliance Party, who are not noted as opponents of proposals coming from the Northern Ireland Office, clearly condemns these proposals in unequivocal terms, and that is a good thing. I will offer what I think is a better way forward, but it is important to congratulate the Alliance Party for bringing forward the motion.
I am not clear about what the Government’s precise proposals are, and I would be delighted if other Members were in a position to inform us about that. We have had several suggestions. Mr Paisley Jnr read a paragraph from the Weston Park communiqué, but that document was not clear about what was being proposed. It has been said that it is about legislation to deal with people who are "on the run". That is not the same as a general amnesty. A general amnesty would refer to all offences that had occurred, and would benefit people whether or not they are "on the run". However, that is not being proposed.
Part of the reason that we have not seen proposals emerge so far is that there is great difficulty in defining something that would relate to the handful of individuals who are "on the run", and not relate to others who are not. Anything that relates to a specific group will come into the category of private legislation; it would not be a general public act. There are considerable technical problems in bringing forward such legislation. We do not yet know precisely what the provision is.
In so far as there is any argument in favour of dealing with people "on the run", the case presented is that people who are not "on the run" by virtue of having had their cases dealt with under existing legislation can now live in Northern Ireland and move about freely, whereas those who are "on the run" and have not had their cases dealt with are in a disadvantageous position.
In so far as there is a problem, it can be dealt with. Those who are "on the run" can come back, surrender themselves to the police, go before the courts and apply for early release under the early release scheme. Existing legislation provides for such cases to be dealt with. The Alliance Party’s need for people to acknowledge their guilt in court can be met. There is also a provision for those offenders to be treated in the same way as others. An important general point is that the persons referred to should not gain any privilege over others, and should be treated exactly as others have been treated since the agreement.
Any measure that would apply only to terrorists who were "on the run", whether they came from one group, several groups or all groups, would be repugnant. Many in Northern Ireland would find a one-sided amnesty morally repugnant. The Government do not understand the strength of people’s distaste for the proposals that they are introducing.
Mr Paisley Jnr’s comments were, as usual, erroneous. Before, during and after Weston Park, and every time that the issue has arisen, we have urged the Government strongly not to follow that course.

Mr Ian Paisley Jnr: Rubbish.

Rt Hon David Trimble: The Member might not believe it, but it is true.

Mr Donovan McClelland: Order.

Rt Hon David Trimble: Those who advance their political careers through distortion and deceit can make any comment they choose. The facts speak for themselves. We have, at every occasion, advised the Government not to go down that course. We have said that it would be legally and morally wrong. Furthermore, if the Government take that course, it will do them enormous damage not only in the eyes of people in Northern Ireland but in the eyes of people in the United Kingdom generally. The Government know that the Ulster Unionist Party would fight such a proposal at every stage through Parliament.

Mr Donovan McClelland: Order.

Rt Hon David Trimble: I speak in the knowledge that the actions of my Colleagues and myself in Parliament will carry much more weight than the comments of the Members in the corner, who are conspicuous by their absence and their ineffectiveness on those issues — [Interruption].

Mr Donovan McClelland: Order. The Member is entitled to be heard.

Rt Hon David Trimble: The SDLP amendment does not condemn clearly the amnesty proposal. Therefore, my party could not support it. The DUP amendment, on the other hand, contains the usual posturing, sets out an unreal position and does not engage with the existing situation. However, my party’s amendment would deal with amnesty and provide for the operation of the judicial process. Furthermore, it would remind those parties that are related to paramilitary organisations of their commitments to the Mitchell principles, which deal with the continuing use of paramilitary violence, and, by extension, the issue of exiles. For that reason, Mr Deputy Speaker, I propose amendment No 3.

Mr Mitchel McLaughlin: Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. The issue of the "on the runs", as they have been called, is not, as the Alliance Party would argue, one of a general amnesty. The British Army, the RUC and the UDR have had a general amnesty for the past 30 years. The issue relates to the anomalies resulting from the peace process and the Good Friday Agreement. The proposals will sort out such anomalies, and are precisely in line with the spirit of the Good Friday Agreement and the logic of a peace process and a conflict resolution process.
Political prisoners have been released under the Good Friday Agreement. That was agreed, negotiated and voted on. In other words, we agreed that that would be the outcome. Anyone who is pursued, arrested, charged and sentenced, and who is a member of an organisation that is on cessation, would be similarly released. That is a colossal waste of time and money. However, that is not the key issue.
Any such pursuit of those individuals is fraught with dangers for the peace process. Can that be the intention of the proposers of the motion? I suspect not. However, it is the intention of those in the Unionist community who belong to the "No" camp. It is their intention to find, manufacture and exploit every opportunity to damage the peace process. For that reason, Sinn Féin is critical of the approach taken by the Alliance Party.
Sinn Féin’s approach as a pro-agreement party is governed by the logic of a conflict resolution process. The matter will be resolved as a result of our engagement with the British Government. No other party has sought to resolve this matter, and no other party has brought forward any realistic proposals to resolve it. The issue challenges those who claim to be in the pro-agreement camp, because it must be dealt with and resolved. There is no benefit to any community in pussyfooting around. The issue must be resolved as part of a conflict resolution process. It is interesting to contrast the opinions of the proposers of the motion and of the amendments with their silence about the British Army, the UDR, the RIR, the RUC or MI5 — no calls for court appearances there.
The SDLP surrendered on Patten’s minimum requirement for those who would be transferring directly from the RUC. That is shameful given the RUC’s clear track record of involvement in orchestrating murder campaigns, collusion with Loyalist paramilitaries and abuse of the civil rights of the Nationalist community over many years. I want to refute, on the record, Eileen Bell’s revisionist comment that there was a time when the RUC enjoyed the support of the Nationalist community. Never in its history did the RUC enjoy the support of the Nationalist community. In the earliest years of its existence it reached the princely height of 19% support, and it plummeted from that point.
The RUC’s track record compelled parties such as Alliance and the SDLP to make clear their position that if there were a general amnesty for the perpetrators of such nefarious activities as collusion with Loyalist murder squads or the orchestration of murder campaigns, they should also be brought to the attention of those who talk about justice. However, we find that the old agenda has "not gone away, you know". The old agenda is to close your eyes, institutionalise state violence and not to talk about it. Do not talk about the war if it means talking about the British Army, the RUC or the UDR. Do not talk about the war in those circumstances, but talk about Loyalists and the IRA — they are safe subjects.
Thus, we find the lopsided debate that has characterised those parties’ approach to the peace process. In such circumstances, those people will be held to account by a community that will judge their double standards, and by a community that knows that if we are to have the truth, we must have the whole truth. If we talk about people being held to account, we must ensure that everyone is held to account, including the security services.

Mr Cedric Wilson: My party will not be supporting the motion standing in the name of the Alliance Party. As usual, the Alliance Party has almost got it right. It looked at the situation and no doubt reflected a view, even among its supporters, who, as Mr Trimble pointed out, are not known for their strong Unionist views or traditions.
This agreement, and the amnesty that is being proposed as part of the Belfast Agreement, are so obnoxious that even the soft-bellied, slightly green Alliance Party has difficulty keeping the decent ordinary people who normally support it along the tracks of agreeing that this was what they signed up to in the Belfast Agreement.
The Alliance Party got it right at the start of the motion by saying that this is inconsistent with justice and international practice. Everyone throughout the United Kingdom, and perhaps throughout Europe and further afield, knows that the stark reality is that Northern Ireland faced a 30-year terrorist campaign, yet President Bush and the Prime Minister tell us that they will carry out a programme of terrorising the terrorist and of making sure that there is nowhere for them to rest their feet. Northern Ireland has perhaps suffered most, certainly in Europe, yet the final indignity for the victims and the families of those who have been maimed and murdered by these terrorists is that the terrorists will now be given an amnesty. No doubt Mr Trimble is aware that this will be a total amnesty for all terrorist acts before 1998.
The Alliance Party got it right when it said that this was an affront to decency and democracy. However, it got it wrong when it said that this process and the Weston Park proposal had nothing to do with the Belfast Agreement and that it was not in the agreement. The Alliance Party must be aware that the first item on the agenda of the Belfast Agreement was the release of all unreconstructed terrorists — terrorists who had shown neither repentance nor sorrow for their crimes — and then to place the frontmen of those organisations into the heart of Government in Northern Ireland and to set about — with the complete acquiescence of Mr Trimble and his party — the destruction of the force that stood between the decent ordinary citizen, Catholic, Protestant, Unionist and Nationalist, and the men of terror represented by Mr Adams and Mr McGuinness.
Mr Deputy Speaker, we hear Mr Trimble’s denial of Weston Park and that he had signed up to it. [Interruption].

Mr Donovan McClelland: Order.

Mr Cedric Wilson: We are aware that after the Weston Park talks Mr Trimble and even Mr Ervine, who represents the PUP and who fronts the Loyalist paramilitaries, said that Weston Park was a bridge too far and that they could not endorse it. Mr Trimble’s fingerprints are indisputably on the Weston Park document. When he came back he set about one of the demands on the 23-point plan of Weston Park; that was Mr Trimble’s part of the deal. The bit that he had to implement was to put back in office — by signing the necessary papers for the North/South Ministerial Council — Mr McGuinness and Ms de Brún. He complied with the British Government.
He also sat by while the final nail was put in the coffin of the RUC, and he watched the military posts come down. Every item on the IRA wish list of Weston Park has been gradually fulfilled. Mr Trimble now tells us that he will stand against this. If he wants to show the true nature of his opposition to this — and this applies to all the Unionists who participate in the Executive with Sinn Féin — he can tell the British Government that the day they introduce this legislation he and his Colleagues and all the Ministers represented in the Executive will no longer give any credibility to the House or to allow this charade to go on.
I come to the nonsense suggested by the Alliance Party that — on the word of Sinn Féin/IRA — these exiles can be bartered; that we can bring these people back and that they will come to no harm. No Unionist could believe any commitment made by Mr McGuinness, as there was a lady in the Bogside whose son was taken across the border —

Mr Donovan McClelland: Your time is up.

Mr Cedric Wilson: Mr McGuinness gave him a safe guarantee, yet he was murdered. This is an absolute nonsense.

Mr Donovan McClelland: Mr Wilson, your time is up.

Mr Cedric Wilson: Unionists must now remove themselves from a process that is bringing Northern Ireland rapidly to its knees.

Mr David Ervine: It seems to me that Sinn Féin has admitted that it did not do a good job in the talks on the Good Friday Agreement. I thought that I did a wonderful job — [Interruption].

Mr Donovan McClelland: Order.

Mr David Ervine: In the talks there was a specific clause that dealt with the issue of prisoners — prisoners whom some people believed were political prisoners but whom others believed were representatives of criminality. Nevertheless, there was a specific section dealing with the issue. I did a good enough job. I offered the people, with all the moral nightmares that it caused, as much as they could dare take. The Republican movement is now saying — and it has been saying it consistently behind closed doors with the British and Irish Governments — that it is not enough. The Republican movement is saying that it needs not only to have its so-called prisoners on the run returned, without going through due process of law — albeit an adjusted process of law to take into consideration the abnormality of the society that we lived in — but to have a process of inquiries. As the Republican movement achieves amnesty, it requires members of the security services to step across the hot coals that Sinn Féin and other Nationalists have planned for them.
In answer to Sinn Féin’s comment that they won’t talk about the security services, I will talk about the security services but not, as it was suggested, from an anti-agreement point of view. I will talk about them from a pro-agreement point of view. Enough is enough. The Good Friday Agreement is in trouble, as we all know. One wonders why the DUP does not support Sinn Féin when it asks for the return of prisoners on the run, because the two issues of amnesty and inquiry have the capacity to hole below the waterline all that we believed to be possible. I have no doubt about that. It is clear that Sinn Féin’s hypocrisy in requiring amnesty for themselves, and demanding the full rigour of the law for others, is shameful.
In some respects it is like the situation when Gerry Adams was asked in the Felons’ Club "Is that why 10 men died, Gerry — for cross-border bodies?" Sinn Féin’s answer is "You think you are doing badly? Look at the state of those Unionists."
The process of continued agitation at Unionism, aiming at the cracks that exist in the Unionist community, offers to Sinn Féin easy pickings from the British and Irish Governments. Here is how it works: Unionism demands, Gerry Adams offers to supply. Of course, Unionism does not have anything to give, so a Government must pay the price. The more in dismay we seem to be, the higher the price that Sinn Féin can require. The greater the nightmare that we are in, the more the British Government believe they have to keep Sinn Féin sweet to get the sweeties that will allow at least some Unionists to believe that a peace is possible.
In our own hands, therefore, lies the reality of how the British Government parleys with Sinn Féin. Push John Reid out of the road and start taking these people on face to face. The first thing that those of us who believe in the Union need to tell them is that there cannot be any more. The Good Friday Agreement contains a reasonable enough system, given the nightmare that our society has come through, for anyone to step forward and be part of the community.
Had you said five years ago to one of these guys on the run for a double murder "I’ll tell you what. Come you with me — we will go to the barracks. You will go to Long Kesh, Magilligan or Maghaberry, and you will probably spend six or seven weeks on remand; your trial will be sorted out; you will get slapped across the knuckles; and you will serve up to two years" — do you know what he would have said? He would have said "How do I sign on? How do I get to do that?" If I am aware of that, then Sinn Féin is aware of it, but Sinn Féin still does not get enough. [Interruption].
I hope that there will be a degree of silence as I speak. I will leave you, Mr Deputy Speaker, with this thought. The issue of amnesty versus inquiry can — and will, if forced forward — hole the Good Friday Agreement below the waterline. Not everyone in the Chamber, perhaps with one exception, wants that to happen.

Prof Monica McWilliams: There was a large student demonstration outside, so I apologise to the House and to those who spoke earlier in the debate for my lateness.
My party is concerned that the Alliance Party’s motion is an attempt to simplify, unhelpfully, the complicated issue of outstanding prosecutions for offences committed before 1998. The Alliance Party wants to deal with the matter legally, but it is not solely a legal issue. It wants to link the issue to exiles but not to the wider context of security, law and order, political stability and the need for confidence building in a community that sorely requires it.
No matter how much we might want to put behind us the issues of outstanding prosecutions, exiles and continuing paramilitary and organised crime, they cannot be dealt with by a single wave of the legislative wand. There is no magic wand, as those who were involved in the negotiations know. It requires negotiation, political will, strong leadership and hard work on all sides. To assume that the issue lies at the door of the Government or the courts is to focus on one aspect only. That assumption betrays a sore misunderstanding of the nature of conflict resolution in Northern Ireland.
To demand — and it is a simple and foolish demand — that some of the "on the runs" should simply surrender themselves, approach the courts, admit their guilt, be sentenced and then released at the pleasure of the courts, is to live in fantasy land. We should know by now how unhelpful it is to tie issues together. That merely blocks progress on outstanding issues until somebody’s demands are met.
I say to those who would prevent any resolution for those on the run until exiles are returned home, and to those who refuse to discuss the exiles issue until reforms of policing are introduced, that work must be allowed to continue in parallel on all those difficult issues. That has been the case to date, and it is why we have driven the process forward step by step, dealing with the issues in parallel, without making one demand in return for another.
We would have had no progress on policing, decommissioning, or the devolved Government that we now have, had we not adopted that approach, yet the Alliance Party is attempting to place another set of chains on the peace process. The origins of the proposals for those on the run are the Weston Park talks. The proposals were derived from a package of measures, with which not everyone was satisfied, as the First Minister pointed out. However, we should not take the proposals out of context. The agreement contained no explicit provision for those on the run, but those people must be dealt with one day. We must face up to the issue as part of the peace process, as other controversial issues have been faced.
We must deal with the deeds of the past. We recognise the need for truth and accountability, and there must be a proper discussion of the pros and cons of the methods of achieving that. However, this is not the time for that debate. We urge all the parties to get involved in that process. Local groups have begun the process by building on good international practice.
The Women’s Coalition is opposed to the exclusion and the intimidation of people from their homes. We recognise that it is not solely a current problem, it will continue for some time. There is no justification for such a situation in a democratic society. Reforms have been made to provide proper channels to deal with community problems and conflicts. However, as with decommissioning, we call on everyone with influence to use it to end the practice of exiling people. We must focus on practical justice, the justice that results from conflict resolution, which involves not only ending violence, but ending its causes.
The Alliance Party’s suggestion for dealing with people "on the run", which has no precedent in justice or in international practice, is an assumption that "one size fits all". It does not, and that concept is simplistic. The SDLP’s amended motion acknowledges the complexity of the issue and offers much more constructive and creative ways to resolve it.

Mr Robert McCartney: There is nothing so corrosive of the human spirit as a sense of injustice. All those innocent people in Northern Ireland who have suffered at the hands of the murderous terrorists on both sides, but largely those of violent Republicanism, will undoubtedly feel betrayed. They will feel that the rule of law has been abandoned if — and this is how the UUP’s amendment describes it — the Government’s offer of amnesty is permitted to go forward.
I listened to Mr McLaughlin attempting to equate the activities of the security forces with the sort of terrorists who are "on the run". I remind Mr McLaughlin and Sinn Féin of the schoolteachers who were dragged out and shot in front of their pupils, of the bread servers who were shot as they went into shops to deliver their wares, of the people who were "sorted out" at Kingsmill — 10 of them, gunned down by the IRA because they were Protestants — of Teebane, and of the members of the Irish Collie Club who were burnt alive by the IRA at La Mon. To talk about the perpetrators of those atrocities being engaged in anything that might be described as a war under the terms of the Geneva Convention is disgusting.
However, that is what Mr McLaughlin offers. What he also offers is a threat. Mark this: he tells the House that any pursuit of those individuals is fraught with danger for the peace process. What does that mean if it is decoded? It means that if Sinn Féin does not continue to get its way from a supine, abject, appeasing British Government, it might have to sabotage the peace process. By whom will it be made fraught, but by Sinn Féin, and why? The reason is that Sinn Féin, through thick and thin, has managed to retain its weaponry. The real issue is decommissioning. The people who threaten the peace process if their insatiable demands are not met retain 99·9% of their weaponry, Semtex, Kalashnikovs and mortars, yet the leader of the UUP prattles on, down the wings of the Assembly, suggesting that decommissioning has taken place. Decommissioning will come back to haunt the Assembly and the UUP if there is anything remotely resembling decency, courage or guts when the Ulster Unionist Council meets to hear this man prattling appeasement.
Those people "on the run" are murderers and psychopaths who did not wish to face justice. It is unutterably wrong that the IRA continues to threaten people — telling them to leave their homes and warning them that if they return they will be murdered — while Mr Gerry Adams, the world statesman, the friend of Mandela, the confidante of Cuba and Castro parades himself about and claims that it is not the IRA that is using bullets, smashing ankles and kneecaps, wielding clubs or strapping people like Patsy Gillespie into a car loaded with explosives and forcing them to drive to a checkpoint. "Oh no", says Mr Adams "if the community wants them back, what has that to do with Sinn Féin or the IRA?"
Mr Mc Laughlin reached fresh heights of hypocrisy today. There was much wisdom in what Mr Ervine said today, though I do not often agree with him. It is alleged that there will be some sort of truth-and- reconciliation trade-off whereby those people "on the run" will be given an amnesty. However, there will be no trade-off for those in the security forces because wound licking from before 1972 has become an art form of Nationalism
There will be no reconciliation, no forgiveness and no peace while people like Mitchel McLaughlin and his ilk continue to ply their awful trade in Northern Ireland.

Mr Mark Durkan: I support amendment No 1. The Alliance Party’s motion is flawed. I concur with some of Ian Paisley Jnr’s remarks. The motion’s proposal that people should have to admit guilt before a court, be sentenced and have that sentence suspended is unworkable and deeply flawed on several grounds that we cannot support.
Amendment No 1 would also correct the motion, which misdescribes, in some ways dangerously, the nature of the two Governments’ proposal. However, we still recognise the proposal for what it is, and we recognise particularly the fact that it is beyond the requirements of the Good Friday Agreement. Mitchel McLaughlin and members of Sinn Féin know that it is beyond the requirements of the Good Friday Agreement. If they felt that it was consistent with the agreement, it would be subject to judicial review. The two Governments would be taken to court, just as the Irish Government have been taken to court for failing to release those convicted of the murder of Det Garda Jerry McCabe. It is beyond the requirements of the agreement, and that is why it was negotiated at the May 2000 talks and subsequently at Weston Park.
Mitchel McLaughlin also said that Sinn Féin was the only pro-agreement party to address the issue and made much of the fact that his was the only pro-agreement party to bring forward proposals on it. However, he failed to mention that Sinn Féin is the only pro-agreement party whose members, representatives and officers will actually benefit from the proposal. That perhaps suggests why Sinn Féin was so singular in its interest and efforts in this area.
The SDLP did not pursue this issue at all at Weston Park. Contrary to the impressions given by Ian Paisley Jnr, our formal response to the two Governments’ proposals of 1 August recorded that we had not pursued this issue at Weston Park and also pointed out that it was not a provision of the agreement. Similarly, we recognised the proposal for a review of the Parades Commission as entirely extraneous to the agreement. We are completely consistent on all those issues.
At Weston Park, we also paid much attention to the need that we saw, and still see, for judicial inquiries to deal with serious issues of concern in relation to past cases. We concentrated on seeking inquiries for those cases — Sinn Féin was concentrating on gaining these benefits for people on the run.
In the post-Weston Park package from the two Governments, the provision made for those "on the run" was the result of a sidebar deal. The Governments also made other provisions and commitments. The Governments said that the Weston Park package was a take-it-or-leave-it package. It was a comprehensive package to ensure the agreement’s complete implementation.
Some parts of the package are moving forward. Two of them are entirely extraneous to the agreement: the review of the Parades Commission and the proposed amnesty for those "on the run". We have not yet seen other aspects of the package that are relevant to the agreement. Paragraphs 21 and 22 of the Weston Park package of 1 August contained a commitment to the implementation group, but we have not seen it. All parties wanted it, except for Sinn Féin.
When we pointed out that contradiction to the Governments, we were counselled with the observation from senior Government representatives that the problem is that our party does not have guns. That, as we have pointed out, is a counsel of cynicism. People need not be anti-agreement or Unionist to ask questions about the management of parts of the process. The Governments know where we stand on those issues.
Another reason why we particularly commend amendment No 1 to the House is that, unlike any of the other amendments, it properly addresses the issue of victims. That issue should be addressed in a meaningful way.

Mr Donovan McClelland: The Member has 10 seconds.

Mr Mark Durkan: There is too much danger of a partisan approach to the treatment of victims being adopted. They are either patronised or ghettoised. We need a victim-centred approach, and amendment No 1 is unique in focusing on that requirement.

Mr Gregory Campbell: In supporting amendment No 2 in my name, I wish to make some comments. While awaiting the Government’s deliberations in the next week or two, several Members have made much of their amazement, annoyance or astonishment at the outcome of the Weston Park talks and their further implementation. Mr Ervine’s comments and those subsequently made by the Deputy First Minister almost made me think that after four years — eventually — we were getting to the point at which the light was coming on. When we give in to terrorists what do they do? They ask for more. There is an amazing thing. Many bigots, terrorists, arsonists and murderers are members of Sinn Féin. If they are let out of jail early they may say OK, but they still want a little bit more. Those who designed the deal that got terrorists out of jail early then say that they did not mean for it to be like the way it is. They thought that when the train was on the track and moving in a particular direction it might move slowly and that matters would move alongside the train. Now they complain because the Provos have jumped on board and want to put in more fuel to make the train go faster. All those who constructed the device, laid the tracks and put the train on those tracks now say that they did not want it to move so quickly. It is a bit late to start complaining four years later, as the First Minister has done. He waxed eloquently about how he and his party would trenchantly oppose all manifestations of the Bill when we see it. If that opposition at all resembles the trenchant opposition that I witnessed in the House of Commons when dealing with criminal justice, when I saw a series of amendments withdrawn time after endless time, I await the outcome with bated breath.
The Deputy First Minister and Mr Alban Maginness referred to a sidebar deal. Part of that means that people such as Liam Averill, a double sectarian killer, and Owen Carron, a Sinn Féin ex-Member of Parliament, both of whom are on the run, will be given an amnesty. A series of other people will be let out of jail. One of the First Minister’s points was accurate. One option is that prisoners could give themselves up, return to jail for a few weeks and then be released. If the second option is a complete amnesty, why on earth would prisoners accept the first option? He is correct in that respect. Therefore, why did he agree in the first place with the concept of early release of prisoners in the Belfast Agreement?

Mr Donovan McClelland: The Member’s time is up.

Mr Gregory Campbell: If one plays with fire, do not be concerned if one gets burned. The First Minister is getting his fingers burned. He seems to be realising that the chickens are coming home to roost.
When we see the terms of the Bill, we shall see the reality and we must resist it. Amendment No 2 will do that successfully, and I ask Members to support it.

Mr Dermot Nesbitt: Previous Members who spoke used the term "cherry-picking" to refer to the Belfast Agreement. My party has never wanted to cherry-pick. It wishes to see the full and accurate implementation of the Belfast Agreement. The agreement does not include an offer of amnesty, which is why my party is opposed to such an offer. The Belfast Agreement clearly outlines the terms, and that is why my party wants its full implementation.
Not only are exclusively democratic and peaceful means mentioned on page 1 but the opposition of any use or threat of force by others is mentioned. Retained arms, although predominantly silent, still threaten. That is why my party remains committed to full decommissioning. The Pledge of Office states that those in ministerial positions must be committed to
"non-violence and exclusively peaceful and democratic means".
Weapons that are still held, even if they are predominantly silent, do not constitute a commitment to exclusively peaceful and democratic means.
Another aspect that Members referred to is mentioned in both the Belfast Agreement and the Mitchell principles, both of which we want to implement. I am sorry that Mr McCartney has left the Chamber. I wish that he had stayed because I like to exchange views with him eye to eye. The Mitchell principles refer to the absolute commitment and total disarmament of all paramilitary organisations. When referring to my party, Mr McCartney talked about "prattling appeasement". He talked about the real issue of decommissioning. He has said that all we need is a mere form of words by which paramilitary parties can be treated like democratic parties. I hope that he reads the transcript of today’s debate, because he is the hypocrite; he is prattling appeasement when he uses phrases such as "mere form of words". If anyone does not believe me, especially Mr McCartney, I invite him or her to read the ‘Belfast Telegraph’ of 1 May 1998, which plainly shows that. I do not accept Mr McCartney’s accusation of prattling appeasement. He should take the mote out of his own eye before he accuses another Member.
When Mr Trimble was speaking, there were loud noises from the DUP. Of course, there was silence when Sinn Féin Members were speaking. They talked about — [Interruption].

Mr Donovan McClelland: Order.

Mr Dermot Nesbitt: Let me make it clear that we fought the Weston Park aspect at every stage. Dr Paisley says that he wants to be the leader of Unionism. He said that he would be glad to have his Christmas dinner with an election under his belt — such prophecy. However, let me look at the DUP — [Interruption].

Mr Donovan McClelland: Mr Nesbitt, you must address your remarks to the Chair.

Mr Dermot Nesbitt: I am addressing the Chair, but that does not preclude me from looking in another direction. As I look at the DUP Members, I remind them that they cannot listen. They said that there would be no talks until the IRA was defeated. They said that they had Ulster Resistance, which would smash the IRA. They had the Third Force and the Carson Trail. They had many things — [Interruption].

Rev William McCrea: What about the hokey- cokey?

Mr Donovan McClelland: Order, order.

Mr Dermot Nesbitt: The DUP delivered nothing. The DUP even said that it would not recognise Sinn Féin, but it recognises Sinn Féin all the time. The volume of DUP voices is remarkable, given that they cannot listen to what is the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.

Rev Dr Ian Paisley: On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Surely the Member should continue his speech and say why he invited me to South Down when he was fighting the seat, and why he said that he was glad that I was there to help him to fight the seat.

Mr Donovan McClelland: Order. That is not a point of order.

Mr Maurice Morrow: I was interested to hear the Minister- in-waiting’s speech. He seemed to get carried away, and was under the impression that the Deputy Speaker was down here rather than up there. As Mr McCartney says, Mr Nesbitt seemed to be slightly disorientated.
The DUP amendment goes right to the heart of the issue. The early release — or what is now known as an amnesty, which is an extension of the early release scheme — is a continuation of the Belfast Agreement. During his deliberations, Mr Trimble said that the UUP had warned the Government not to go down that road. Mr Trimble must have noted that the Government are not listening to him. I wonder why the Government would not listen to Mr Trimble. Could it be because this is the same Mr Trimble who said that the UUP would not negotiate with Sinn Féin before, during or after the talks? The UUP did the opposite of what it said that it would do. No matter how silly the Government might be, that was not lost on them. They realised that to be gored by Mr Trimble would have the same effect as being gored by a dead sheep.
Mr Nesbitt is trying to make an impact on the Minister by ranting in such a way. He does not have to impress us by virtue of the fact that he will soon be the Minister. We will judge him when he gets into office and we will take him on when that day comes. However, he should deal with the real issues now. The answer to why Mr Nesbitt and Mr Trimble have no effect on the Government is simple, and Mark Durkan let the answer out of the bag. He said that the UUP do not have guns. That is the real issue. These guys over here have the edge — they have the real machinery. That is one of the reasons that my party insisted on a full and transparent decommissioning process. When Mr Trimble returns to the Dispatch Box, he may wish to note what some of the rest of us have noted.
In the House of Commons, on 24 October 2001, the Secretary of State said — [Interruption]. At least Mr Nesbitt has the guts to stay to listen, unlike his Colleague. The Secretary of State said:
"We and the Irish Government have now accepted that it would be a natural development of that scheme for outstanding prosecutions and extradition proceedings for offences committed before 10 April 1998 not to be pursued against supporters of organisations, now on ceasefire … Both Governments have agreed to take such steps as are necessary to resolve the issue as soon as possible, and in any event by March 2002."
The scheme to which the Secretary of State referred was the early release scheme. The next words are the important ones:
"Piece by piece the Belfast agreement is taking shape."
That is what it is all about. I also draw Mr Nesbitt’s attention to something that appeared in the local press just this morning.

Mr Gregory Campbell: Not that photograph again.

Mr Maurice Morrow: No, it is not that photograph again. An article quoted two of Mr Nesbitt’s Colleagues, Mr Burnside and Mr Jeffrey Donaldson:
"We want to make it clear to the Government that the whole process is in danger of collapsing if there is going to be legislation for an amnesty for on-the-run prisoners or more policing reforms."
I challenge Mr Nesbitt through you, Mr Deputy Speaker, to tell the House whether he agrees with the sentiments expressed by his two Colleagues and is prepared to bring the charade to a halt, or whether he going to give those guys over there, who have the cutting edge, an opportunity to continue to get —

Mr Donovan McClelland: The Member’s time is up.

Mr Alex Attwood: There are contributions in every debate that define it as good or bad. On this occasion, it was defined as bad. Mr McCartney, you may like to wait 10 seconds.

Mr Robert McCartney: No, I have had enough.

Mr Donovan McClelland: Order.

Mr Alex Attwood: Mitchel McLaughlin, in his contribution, mentioned the RUC, the RIR, the UDR, MI5 and so forth. He never once mentioned an IRA murder or atrocity. In contrast to that, in his contribution, the man who has just left the Chamber never mentioned one state murder or atrocity. That shows how this debate contrasts to the SDLP motion. I want to get back to that — [Interruption].

Mr Mitchel McLaughlin: I notice that Alban Maginness did not.

Mr Alex Attwood: I will come back to you in a second and that will silence you.
The problem with the process — and it is a true process in part — is that it is occasional and partial. It is about the recovery of the bodies of the disappeared, a victims’ commission and inquiries into Bloody Sunday. It might also be about the appointment of an international judge to look at six cases. However, the problem with all of that is that the process is not fully inclusive. Some say that it creates a hierarchy of victimhood; others say that it is selective. It leaves few people reassured and many embittered. The SDLP amendment is trying to move the process beyond being particular, selective and exclusive to becoming inclusive and general, and common to all those who have suffered grief and pain over the past 30 years.
The principles that inform the SDLP amendment — and I welcome Monica McWilliams’s support — are the affirmation of those who have suffered, the acknowledgement of the wrong that has been done, and the move to greater accountability so that out of the pain of the past 30 years can come wisdom falling drop by drop upon the heart. That is the purpose of the SDLP amendment. If we do not move into that sort of territory we will create a hierarchy of victimhood in which many people will feel excluded — their grief will not be acknowledged.
This issue more than any other exposes the self-seeking agendas of Sinn Féin and the DUP, their double standards and their doublethink. While Sinn Féin calls for the state to account for its human rights abuses — a state that the IRA said it was at war with — they do not call for themselves in the IRA to account for the human rights abuses that they were guilty of. They call for an amnesty and for no accountability for what they did, but they do not apply the same standards and principles to what the state did. It is doublethink at a preposterous level.
Sinn Féin says that it agrees in principle that those who were guilty of the Omagh bomb should be brought to justice, but it does not agree in principle that the IRA should be brought to justice for its actions. On the one hand, Sinn Féin calls for those who are exiled in Ireland because they are "on the run" to be allowed to come home. However, it refuses to accept its responsibility for allowing the return home of those exiled outside this island, whom they excluded without just cause. Sinn Féin says that it wants to persuade Unionists about the future of an agreed Ireland, yet prominent ex-Republican prisoners claim that the party should abandon the language of oppression, struggle and sacrifice, and call for the language of victory now.
On the one hand, it says that it wants to persuade Unionists that there is a bright future, yet on the other, one of its senior ex-Republican prisoners said at a recent conference that there could be no reconciliation in Northern Ireland until the British state acknowledged what it had done to the Irish people. This, more than any other issue, exposes Sinn Féin and the IRA.

Mr David Ford: One of the most painful aspects of the Good Friday Agreement for many who eventually supported it was the early release of politically motivated prisoners. Many had to swallow hard before they backed that section of the agreement. However, the Good Friday Agreement provided that those who had been convicted in a court of law were eligible to be considered for release on licence. Their deeds were public. There was either a plea or a finding of guilt, and the release on licence meant that those concerned could be returned to prison. I suspect that if the Government proposal from the Weston Park communiqué had been contained in the agreement, not only might the majority have been smaller, but there might not have been a majority at all.
It is clear from the Government’s proposals that to fail to pursue criminal prosecutions at this stage would be tantamount to accepting that a war was fought. It would be incredible if the Government were to proceed on that basis. Similarly, it would be dubious if they were to proceed with an amnesty without ensuring that the paramilitaries who would benefit from that amnesty had to lift their threats against others. That is why the motion was drafted carefully to set out in the limited detail that is possible at this stage a response of opposition to the Government’s proposals. It states how those proposals could be refined realistically, in the light of the Government’s commitment to Sinn Féin that they would proceed on that basis, and it inserts a direct linkage between those threatened by paramilitaries and the paramilitary organisations that would benefit from such an amnesty.
I will examine the three proposed amendments. I am concerned about the way in which Alban Maginness proposed the section of his amendment that relates to the second sentence of the original motion. The issue of whether a truth commission would be appropriate for Northern Ireland is too complex to be dealt with in one sentence. That is why the Alliance Party, in its motion, proposed what it regarded as a minimum requirement. It did not venture to propose the establishment of a truth commission, a possibility that is opened up by the amendment that is proposed by Alban Maginness and Mr Attwood.
I acknowledge Alban Maginness’s point that we should recognise the hurt of victims, but that is not the purpose of the motion. We have considered the needs of victims, and, when discussing that issue, we should remember that many will never know the details about those who carried out atrocities against them or their family members. Therefore, we cannot wrap up all victims’ concerns into such a motion. Fundamentally, my difficulty with the SDLP’s amendment is the weak, wobbly plea at the end that something should be done about exiles. It weakens the original motion far too drastically.
The DUP’s amendment was outlined in the terms that we would have expected — nothing less from either the proposer or his Colleague. Mr Durkan responded to the suggestion that the parties that were present at Weston Park are bound by the communiqué of the two Governments to "take it or leave it". However, the point merits repetition.
Whatever Cedric Wilson and Ian Paisley Jnr may say about that, as Eileen Bell made clear, it is no part of our case that we supported the Weston Park communiqué. Some of us made our objections to that clear from an early stage.
The fundamental difficulty with the DUP amendment is that the Prime Minister has already offered some form of amnesty. The issue now is whether we can do something to ensure that that amnesty does not become an unreasonable, open-ended offer, but is dealt with in line with the terms of the agreement. It is not whether we should simply say no and know that the view of the Assembly if we do say no will simply be entirely overruled by the Government.
The Ulster Unionist amendment was an interesting effort. It seems to be some type of catch-up, chronologically as well as everything else, between the Alliance motion and the DUP amendment. There is an indication that that party has some sort of understanding. I welcome that Mr Trimble seems to think that praise was due to the Alliance motion, although I confess that I cannot say the same for Mr Nesbitt. I could not make out a word that he was saying that was of any relevance to either the motion or the UUP amendment — [Interruption].
We must hope that he will improve in the future, and we will hear something relevant.
The UUP has dropped any issue of linkage. It has dropped any reference to the paramilitary exiles. Given that it has made an art form of creating linkages where they do not exist, for the UUP to drop a linkage where such a direct linkage clearly exists seems to be over the top, beyond anything that we would normally expect of that party. There is a direct comparability between the two issues. The linkage should stay. That is where the fundamental weakness in the UUP amendment must be addressed.
I want to mention some other comments in this brief winding-up speech for a long debate. I noticed that Mitchel McLaughlin believes that the motion takes a lopsided approach. Should he wish to bring forward a motion welcoming all those aspects of Weston Park that dealt with inquiries and so on, I have no doubt that he would be welcome to do so. Those points were dealt with by David Ervine and Mark Durkan. There is no doubt that Sinn Féin was the only party that had associates who were likely to benefit from the motion.

Mr Donovan McClelland: The Member has 10 seconds left.

Mr David Ford: Therefore, it is not surprising that Sinn Féin is the only party that wanted to object to it.
None of the amendments adequately addresses the points properly raised, and therefore the motion should stand unamended.
Question put,
The Assembly divided: Ayes 20; Noes 63
Ayes
Alex Attwood, P J Bradley, Joe Byrne, Arthur Doherty, Mark Durkan, Sean Farren, John Fee, Tommy Gallagher, Carmel Hanna, Denis Haughey, Joe Hendron, Patricia Lewsley, Alban Maginness, Alasdair McDonnell, Eugene McMenamin, Monica McWilliams, Jane Morrice, Eamonn ONeill, Brid Rodgers, John Tierney.
Noes
Ian Adamson, Fraser Agnew, Billy Armstrong, Roy Beggs, Eileen Bell, Paul Berry, Esmond Birnie, Norman Boyd, Gregory Campbell, Mervyn Carrick, Seamus Close, Wilson Clyde, Fred Cobain, Robert Coulter, Duncan Shipley Dalton, Ivan Davis, Bairbre de Brún, Nigel Dodds, David Ford, Sam Foster, Oliver Gibson, Tom Hamilton, William Hay, David Hilditch, Derek Hussey, Roger Hutchinson, Gardiner Kane, John Kelly, Danny Kennedy, James Leslie, Alex Maskey, Kieran McCarthy, Robert McCartney, David McClarty, William McCrea, Barry McElduff, Alan McFarland, Michael McGimpsey, Gerry McHugh, Mitchel McLaughlin, Pat McNamee, Francie Molloy, Maurice Morrow, Conor Murphy, Mick Murphy, Dermot Nesbitt, Dara O’Hagan, Ian Paisley Jnr, Ian R K Paisley, Edwin Poots, Sue Ramsey, Iris Robinson, Mark Robinson, Peter Robinson, Patrick Roche, Jim Shannon, David Trimble, Denis Watson, Peter Weir, Jim Wells, Cedric Wilson, Jim Wilson, Sammy Wilson.
Question accordingly negatived.

Mr Donovan McClelland: I remind Members that if amendment No 2, standing in the name of Mr Campbell, Mr Morrow and Mr Ian Paisley Jnr is made, amendment No 3 will fall.
Question put,
The Assembly divided: 
Ayes
Fraser Agnew, Paul Berry, Norman Boyd, Gregory Campbell, Mervyn Carrick, Wilson Clyde, Nigel Dodds, Oliver Gibson, William Hay, David Hilditch, Roger Hutchinson, Gardiner Kane, Robert McCartney, William McCrea, Maurice Morrow, Ian Paisley Jnr, Ian R K Paisley, Edwin Poots, Iris Robinson, Mark Robinson, Peter Robinson, Patrick Roche, Jim Shannon, Denis Watson, Peter Weir, Jim Wells, Cedric Wilson, Sammy Wilson.
Noes
Alex Attwood, Eileen Bell, P J Bradley, Joe Byrne, Seamus Close, Bairbre de Brún, Arthur Doherty, Mark Durkan, David Ervine, Sean Farren, John Fee, David Ford, Tommy Gallagher, Carmel Hanna, Denis Haughey, Joe Hendron, Billy Hutchinson, John Kelly, Patricia Lewsley, Alban Maginness, Alex Maskey, Kieran McCarthy, Alasdair McDonnell, Barry McElduff, Martin McGuinness, Gerry McHugh, Mitchel McLaughlin, Eugene McMenamin, Pat McNamee, Monica McWilliams, Francie Molloy, Jane Morrice, Conor Murphy, Mick Murphy, Dara O’Hagan, Eamonn ONeill, Sue Ramsey, Brid Rodgers, John Tierney.
Question accordingly negatived.
Question put,
The Assembly divided: Ayes 21; Noes 62
AYES
Ian Adamson, Billy Armstrong, Roy Beggs, Esmond Birnie, Fred Cobain, Robert Coulter, Duncan Shipley Dalton, Ivan Davis, David Ervine, Sam Foster, Tom Hamilton, Derek Hussey, Billy Hutchinson, Danny Kennedy, James Leslie, David McClarty, Alan McFarland, Michael McGimpsey, Dermot Nesbitt, David Trimble, Jim Wilson.
Noes
Fraser Agnew, Alex Attwood, Eileen Bell, Paul Berry, Norman Boyd, P J Bradley, Joe Byrne, Gregory Campbell, Mervyn Carrick, Seamus Close, Bairbre de Brún, Nigel Dodds, Arthur Doherty, Mark Durkan, Sean Farren, John Fee, David Ford, Tommy Gallagher, Oliver Gibson, Carmel Hanna, Denis Haughey, William Hay, Joe Hendron, David Hilditch, Roger Hutchinson, Gardiner Kane, John Kelly, Patricia Lewsley, Alban Maginness, Alex Maskey, Kieran McCarthy, Robert McCartney, William McCrea, Alasdair McDonnell, Barry McElduff, Martin McGuinness, Gerry McHugh, Mitchel McLaughlin, Eugene McMenamin, Pat McNamee, Monica McWilliams, Francie Molloy, Maurice Morrow, Conor Murphy, Mick Murphy, Dara O’Hagan, Eamonn ONeill, Ian Paisley Jnr, Ian R K Paisley, Edwin Poots, Sue Ramsey, Iris Robinson, Mark Robinson, Peter Robinson, Patrick Roche, Brid Rodgers, Jim Shannon, John Tierney, Denis Watson, Peter Weir, Jim Wells, Cedric Wilson.
Question accordingly negatived.
Main Question put.
The Assembly divided: Ayes 21; Noes 63
Ayes
Ian Adamson, Eileen Bell, Esmond Birnie, Seamus Close, Fred Cobain, Robert Coulter, Duncan Shipley Dalton, Ivan Davis, Reg Empey, David Ford, Sam Foster, Tom Hamilton, Danny Kennedy, James Leslie, Kieran McCarthy, David McClarty, Alan McFarland, Michael McGimpsey, Dermot Nesbitt, David Trimble, Jim Wilson.
Noes
Fraser Agnew, Alex Attwood, Paul Berry, Norman Boyd, P J Bradley, Joe Byrne, Gregory Campbell, Mervyn Carrick, Wilson Clyde, Bairbre de Brún, Nigel Dodds, Arthur Doherty, Mark Durkan, David Ervine, Sean Farren, John Fee, Tommy Gallagher, Oliver Gibson, Carmel Hanna, Denis Haughey, William Hay, Joe Hendron, David Hilditch, Billy Hutchinson, Roger Hutchinson, Gardiner Kane, John Kelly, Patricia Lewsley, Alban Maginness, Alex Maskey, Robert McCartney, William McCrea, Alasdair McDonnell, Barry McElduff, Martin McGuinness, Gerry McHugh, Mitchel McLaughlin, Eugene McMenamin, Pat McNamee, Monica McWilliams, Francie Molloy, Jane Morrice, Maurice Morrow, Conor Murphy, Mick Murphy, Dara O’Hagan, Eamonn ONeill, Ian Paisley Jnr, Ian R K Paisley, Edwin Poots, Sue Ramsey, Iris Robinson, Mark Robinson, Peter Robinson, Patrick Roche, Brid Rodgers, Jim Shannon, John Tierney, Denis Watson, Peter Weir, Jim Wells, Cedric Wilson, Sammy Wilson.
Main Question accordingly negatived.

Mr Donovan McClelland: Order. If the Members who are leaving will do so quietly, we can move on to the next item on the Order Paper.

School Buses

Mr Danny Kennedy: I beg to move
That this Assembly notes the number of children who have been killed getting on and alighting from school buses by motorists. It calls on the Executive to conduct urgently an investigation into measures to safeguard the welfare of our children when using school buses, taking into account the relevant laws introduced in the United States.
I am pleased to have the opportunity to bring this motion to the Assembly. It is an important issue. Given the number of accidents, at least two of which in the past three months have had tragic consequences, the debate is timely. The loss of a child, in any circumstances, is a tragic and traumatic event, and I want to be sensitive to the emotions and feelings of those who have lost children.
The safety of children while travelling on school buses, especially when boarding and alighting, has been a matter of concern to me, and I know that other Members share my concern. Several months ago, the Committee for the Environment published the findings of its inquiry into the transportation of children travelling to and from school. I acknowledge the Committee’s work and commend it for the detailed consideration that it gave to such an important issue.
I recognise that the issues that my motion addresses are the responsibility of various Ministers, including the Minister of Education and the Minister for Regional Development. The Department of Education is responsible for policy on school transport, and the Minister for Regional Development would be responsible for changing the road traffic regulations to allow school buses to operate as they do in the American system.
I thank the Minister of the Environment for his presence today. I look forward to his response to the points that will be made in this important debate. As everyone is aware, this is Mr Foster’s last appearance as Minister of the Environment. I pay tribute to him for the priority that he has given to road safety since he took office. Most importantly, as regards the motion, he moved rapidly to increase the number of road safety education officers. As Chairperson of the Education Committee, I am aware of the excellent work that road safety education officers do with young people in schools and other places. That was the clearest demonstration of the Minister’s commitment to the safety of our children and young people, and I congratulate him warmly on it.
The Minister was also responsible for a major increase in road safety advertising. The House will be aware of the high-impact campaigns, many of which addressed young people. Those campaigns have done much to change attitudes and behaviour and to raise the profile of road safety. They have also addressed the principal causes of death and serious injury. The Minister’s personal commitment to making our roads safer has been evident to all. I congratulate him on his performance as Minister of the Environment and for the courteous and accessible way in which he carried out his duties.
The motion urges the Executive to take the necessary action. This is a cross-cutting issue, the responsibility for which does not fall to only one Minister. In order to achieve satisfactory progress, the Executive will be required to take a co-ordinated and cohesive approach, involving not only the Department of the Environment, but the Department of Education and the Department for Regional Development.
Almost 300 schoolchildren were injured travelling to and from school last year. Of those, 76 were passengers on school buses and 100 were pedestrians. The category of pedestrians includes pupils who had just alighted from or were about to board buses. Everyone will agree that those figures must be reduced and that we must do our utmost to improve children’s safety.
Research in the United States shows that three times as many deaths occur when pupils are boarding or alighting from school buses as occur when they are the occupants of buses. As a result, the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America states that children are at a greater risk of being killed when boarding or alighting from a school bus than at any other time. It also states that more school bus safety efforts should be directed towards improving the safety of children when boarding and alighting from buses.
In 1992, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), which is part of the US Department of Transportation, published guidelines on pupil transportation safety. Those guidelines established minimum recommendations for a state highway safety programme for pupil transportation, including the identification, operation and maintenance of school buses used for carrying students. It also made recommendations for the training of passengers, pedestrians and cyclists. The NHTSA recommends that each state in America should have a comprehensive pupil transportation safety programme and that a single agency for the administration and collation of safety data be established.
The guidelines also recommend that each state enact legislation to provide for uniform procedures regarding school buses stopping on public highways for the loading and unloading of children, and that public information campaigns should be conducted regularly to ensure that the driving public understands fully the implications of school bus warning signals and requirements to stop for school buses that are loading or unloading children. Standards have also been published that establish requirements for safety devices to be installed on school buses to improve pedestrians’ safety when they are close to the stopped school buses. The purpose of those standards is to minimise the likelihood of any vehicles passing a stopped bus and injuring nearby pedestrians.
In practical terms, the guidelines recommend that all school buses be clearly identifiable: they are usually painted a bright glossy yellow, which is the worldwide symbol of road safety. School bus drivers should receive training on unloading and unloading procedures, and education programmes have been created to teach children how to board and alight from school buses safely. In Kansas, those programmes are introduced at the start of each school year and repeated regularly throughout the year as a reminder.
School bus drivers should give a clear warning signal that they are about to stop the bus to allow children to alight or board by flashing amber lights that are clearly visible to other motorists. When the bus stops, red lights should flash and an extended arm safety device should be activated to indicate that the children must not cross immediately in front of the bus. The guidelines also recommend that when the school bus is stopped and the red lights are flashing, other motorists should be required to stop at a safe distance from the bus, regardless of the direction in which they are travelling.
Although the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has no authority to require states to adopt those guidelines, several states have enacted appropriate legislation. For example, in New York, not only must motorists not pass a stationary school bus, but when picking up or dropping off passengers who have to cross the public highway, the bus driver must instruct such passengers to cross in front of the bus while the driver keeps the bus halted with the red signals flashing until such passengers have reached the opposite side of the highway. Motorists are prohibited from overtaking a school bus when it is stopped and the penalty for doing so is a considerable fine, penalty points or a spell in jail. There are various methods by which that is enforced in other American states.
Members may also be aware of a project in Staffordshire in England where a local authority’s yellow school bus fleet is claimed to be a resounding success in cutting congestion and taking children to school safely.
I have outlined measures being taken in the United States to improve school bus safety and, in particular, the efforts being made to improve the safety of school bus loading zones when children are boarding and alighting from buses. It is clear that school bus safety in the United States is regulated to a much greater extent than in Northern Ireland, and I understand that other countries such as Australia and New Zealand are basing proposals on the American experience. In its report, the Committee for the Environment recommended that urgent research be undertaken into the potential for new legislation prohibiting other road traffic from passing school buses, and a 1999 report on school transport made similar recommendations in the Republic of Ireland.
Surely it is about time that we took action to address the matter seriously. We can learn from the American experience. We can put measures in place to make travelling by school bus safer. Therefore, I urge the Executive to introduce several pilot schemes in rural and urban areas to assess the impact that the prevention of overtaking school buses while children are boarding or alighting would have, and to see whether such legislation would be suitable for application here. I commend the motion to Members.

Mr Donovan McClelland: As expected, many Members have indicated that they wish to speak in the debate, and for that reason I must limit all those who wish to speak to five minutes. I must also advise that it may not be possible to call everyone who wishes to speak.

Rev William McCrea: Five minutes would not be enough time for me to go into the matters on which my Committee gave me authority to speak.
The opening speech referred to Members knowing that today would be the last appearance by the Minister of the Environment. Members do not know that. If an announcement has been made, it has not been conveyed to me as the Chairperson of the Committee for the Environment or to the members of that Committee that there is a new Minister of the Environment. If that is the case, it would be more appropriate if the relevant Committee were told properly, or told in the House, rather than a Member making an announcement on behalf of some anonymous individual.
I must add that I support the motion with some hesitation. I wish to put on record that anything that contributes to children travelling more safely to and from school deserves the unequivocal and wholehearted support of the Assembly. However, I must draw the attention of the House to matters relevant to the timing and content of the motion.
There is no need for the Executive to conduct an investigation, as suggested, into the welfare of children and school transport because the Committee for the Environment has already dealt with that matter comprehensively.
My Committee spent more than a year carrying out a thorough inquiry not just into the safety of children getting on and off school buses but into every aspect of school transport safety. The Committee considered submissions from 57 groups and individuals. It took oral evidence from 13 different sources, including the leading Departments and the Royal Ulster Constabulary, and it employed leading specialist transport consultants to assess critically and contribute to its findings. The report was published and was in Members’ hands in September 2001.
Several of the Committee’s 28 recommendations relate directly to the motion and are relevant to some of the points made by Mr Kennedy. Page 26 of the report deals in some length with the issue of children boarding and alighting from buses, and the Committee recommended, among many other matters,
"that the Department of the Environment should undertake urgent research into the potential for new legislation in respect of other road traffic passing vehicles that have school bus signs deployed".
The Committee made several recommendations, which were highlighted in its report. I do not have the time to go into those recommendations in this debate. I wrote to the Minister and his Department on several occasions regarding the report, but it was not until the eve of this debate that a contribution was received from the Department of the Environment. Up until then, the Committee received little or nothing of substance from the Department. Indeed, last Thursday, at the request of my Committee, senior officials from the Department of the Environment appeared before the Committee to bring Members up to date on the progress, or lack of progress, that had been made with regard to the report.
Unfortunately, it transpired that their brief was short, and it was indicated that it may be at least four months before the Department will get round to appointing an official to look at the report’s key recommendations in any depth. Even then, it is intended to recruit outside consultants to advance the work.
My Committee’s despair and frustration will be appreciated. I inform the House of that, because as far back as October last year we requested that major revenue be made available to implement some of the recommendations. Up until now, we have not received a substantial response. However, we shall demand one. If it is Mr Foster’s final appearance as Minister today, make no mistake about it — my Committee will be demanding that the new Minister take action on the issue, because we have not had action to date.
Time has run out, but there are many other things that I would like to have said on behalf of the Committee.

Ms Patricia Lewsley: I support the motion. I do not need to tell the House that the safety of our children is of paramount importance, and issues such as a safe means of transport to and from school deserve priority. Safety when boarding or alighting from buses is not the only issue — on-board safety and the proximity of bus stops to children’s homes are also important. We all want to keep our children safe, and we all have a responsibility to do what we can to prevent accidents and, as has been mentioned this afternoon, deaths.
Increased traffic is already a problem on our roads, and a drive is under way to encourage people to make more efficient use of public transport. To do so, parents must be assured that their children will be safe on the journeys to and from school and that there will be adequate supervision to prevent accidents when boarding or alighting from buses. Parents must also be assured that safety measures will be in place when their children are travelling on the buses. As a member of the Committee for Education we considered several measures, including the use of seatbelts; the abolition of the "3 for 2" seats; lights and signage on school buses; new legislation to either prohibit or severely reduce the speed of traffic overtaking school buses; the design of drop-off and pick-up points; supervision at road crossings; and the yellow bus system used in the United States. All those measures have the potential to reduce deaths or casualties, but each has a cost. All would help to protect the safety of children using transport to and from schools.
As has been mentioned by the Chairperson of the Committee for the Environment — the Committee of which I have recently become a member — the school transport inquiry report showed that the cost of installing seat belts is estimated at £180 million, which includes £40 million in recurrent costs. Can we put a price on a child’s life? In its presentation to the Committee last week, departmental representatives talked about the benefits of preventing road casualties. In economic costs, a death was equal to £1 million. A sum of £1 million would compensate no parent for the loss of a child.
Safety on school transport is a classic example of an opportunity for interdepartmental co-operation. It could involve the Department of Education, the Department for Regional Development and the Department of the Environment. However, that co-operation is not apparent because costs appear to be given a higher priority than children’s lives.
Road safety education programmes are important to increase awareness of safety issues. It is vital that the safer routes to school initiative be expanded and delivered to all schools across Northern Ireland. We must ensure that our Administration delivers for young people. Its effects would be to encourage good practice, improve the co-ordination of transport services for children and emphasise the user of a public service rather than the provider.

Mr Gerry McHugh: Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. I support the motion, and I welcome the presence of the Minister of the Environment and the Minister of Education. The safety of children on school buses involves our road system and many Departments, including Education and Environment. The matter has been close to the hearts of the members of the Education Committee for some time. We asked for action on this issue. The House’s attention has been drawn today to the Environment Committee’s report, which was issued last year and on which no action has been taken. That must be changed.
I agree with Ms Lewsley that nothing is more important than the lives and welfare of our children. Action is vital. I am not sure that £140 million would be needed to install seat belts, but we should start that process. Seat belts are very expensive, but the lack of seat belts has not caused the deaths of children. Deaths occur mainly when children are boarding or alighting from buses, and mostly outside the bus, rather than when travelling on the bus. Seat belts would not be so very expensive.
Bus stops are a major danger zone. Passing vehicles kill or injure children leaving a bus stop or boarding a bus. The Department of the Environment alleviated that problem recently by providing space for buses at the sides of busy roads to allow traffic to continue while children board buses.
More work must be done to find out what system we should use. The Environment Committee has done much good work in gathering all the information; there is enough evidence available for action to be taken.
There is the possibility of a new collegiate system of schooling. That will require more transport for children. There are fewer children now, and that may necessitate the closure of some schools. That would oblige children to travel greater distances to the nearest school. The emissions from the additional buses will create an environmental problem.
Educating the public, children and bus drivers to the fact that children cannot tell the speed of oncoming traffic is important. Drivers seem to think that children know the speed that drivers are travelling at, and children seem to think that drivers see them, when it is obvious that they do not. Seeing a child at 20 metres can be the first sight that a driver has of a child leaving the front of a bus, and that can have serious consequences.
There is also the issue of the speed of drivers passing buses, and that is where the yellow bus scheme in America comes into its own. Anyone driving at more than 30 mph has a 90% chance of causing death. When speeds are reduced that percentage drops considerably. It has been shown that speed is an important factor. The American system is better than a system of flashing lights. A study in Tasmania has proved that flashing lights do not slow traffic — motorists will only slow down if they face penalties. Flashing lights may help, but it is almost necessary to stop traffic passing a bus when children are alighting or boarding. It is as simple as that. Go raibh maith agat.

Mr Kieran McCarthy: I thank Mr Kennedy for moving this motion. I am also pleased that both Ministers are here.
I also share the concern expressed by Mr McCrea, the Chairperson of the Committee for the Environment, that his report has been gathering dust since September. Why has action not been taken? The report prepared by the Committee is detailed, informative and comprehensive in every way. I give full marks to the members of the Committee.
I am not so happy with the response from the Department of the Environment. Why has it taken so long to respond to the various concerns of the Committee? Surely a report provided by any Committee deserves to be taken seriously and acted on, especially when it involves such a serious matter as protecting the lives of our schoolchildren. I understand that Translink and the education boards have responded, but the Department of the Environment has not.
I made a written submission to the Committee, as did Ards Borough Council. We concentrated on four main themes, which were included in the Committee’s report along with several others, and were among the many recommendations made to the Executive.
As the motion says, we need immediate measures to safeguard our children when using school buses. I have four main worries. First, I am concerned that the use of a double seat by three children is allowed. We must adopt a policy of one seat, one child. Secondly, on the question of seat belts, an inequality already exists in that private bus operators are, rightly, required by law to have seat belts on every seat, whereas public transport operators are not. That is grossly unfair, and I believe that there should be seatbelts for every seat on all our buses.
Thirdly, I support fully the policy of prohibiting standing on school buses. How can we ask for seat belts for all passengers and then allow standing? That is unacceptable. My fourth area of concern was highlighted by the presentation made to the Committee by the Women’s Institute of Northern Ireland. Mrs Lyttle, from Portaferry in my constituency, who is chairperson of the international Women’s Institute, made a good case for immediate safety improvements on the buses for all schoolchildren. Like myself, the Women’s Institute was deeply touched by the death on the main road between Portaferry and Kircubbin in 1998 of a child who had just got off a school bus to visit his grandparents. Unfortunately, a passing car struck the youngster, who was fatally injured. In my opinion, another young life was lost unnecessarily. There have been other incidents in which fatalities have occurred.
We must support the proposals of the Portaferry Women’s Institute to achieve improvements in safety for youngsters getting on or alighting from a bus. Stopping the traffic has been suggested and was included as a recommendation in the Committee’s report. I understand that in some countries, the traffic is stopped in both directions. That must be looked at immediately.
The 28 recommendations contained in the report of the Committee for the Environment must be taken seriously and acted on as soon as possible. Otherwise, we will continue to have tragic accidents like the one that occurred outside Kircubbin in my constituency a few years ago. Surely every Member in the Assembly wants to avoid such a repetition. I support the motion, and I hope that the full report will be brought to the Assembly in due course and the 28 recommendations acted on immediately.

Ms Jane Morrice: I acknowledge the work of the Minister and, on his departure, I congratulate him on the work that he has done and on his commitment to road safety. I know that he made changes for the better. I will always say that it will never be enough — but I would say that. I urge the Member who takes the Minister’s place to make the issue of road safety a top priority. The permanent secretary promised the Public Accounts Committee that that would be done.
I urge the new Minister to treat road safety as the top priority issue. I do not want to go on at length because everything necessary has been said about buses, road safety and the potential for following the example of the United States. There are interesting examples in the different states.
I welcome and support the motion wholeheartedly. We have learnt from the Chairperson of the Committee about the relevant report, of which I am aware. I would not knock the fact that the motion has been tabled, as Members are all in this together. If a Member decides to table a motion to do something about a report that is sitting on a shelf, that is all the better, given that it is for the safety of children. It does not matter, therefore, who says it or when it is said, as long as it has the goal of saving lives. Every effort must be made to make buses, roads, and public transport in general, safer for our children.
I want to touch on the issue of ministerial and departmental responsibility for road safety. My Colleague, Ms McWilliams, recently took a delegation from the Saintfield Road to meet the Minister for Regional Development, Mr Peter Robinson, to bring to his attention the dangers for children on that road. She had a constructive meeting, and she is hopeful that a pelican crossing will be put in place. I am using that as an example, because the problem is in knowing which Minister and which Department to go to.
Mr Kennedy, in his opening remarks, asked who covered the issue. In this case, the Department of Education, the Department of the Environment and the Department for Regional Development all have a role. It is too fragmented with regard to which Department has responsibility for ensuring action. That is an inappropriate way to deal with such an important issue. I urge the Executive to give the matter serious consideration and to bring road safety under one roof.
I want to conclude by quoting a figure that I have stated on many occasions, because I am an advocate of road safety. It is a figure that is still startling even when it is repeated — 150 road deaths per year in Northern Ireland, which is higher than the United Kingdom average, and 12,000 casualties per year. Patricia Lewsley has spoken about the human cost and that goes without saying, but 12,000 road casualties a year costs the economy £450 million a year. That shocks me every time I say it. When we seriously start to prioritise road safety we will not only save lives, we will save money. However, lives are much more important. I support the motion and hope that something is done promptly.

Mr Tommy Gallagher: Every day over 100,000 children use transport in different parts of the North. It is a useful facility for both parents and children. It is helpful towards children’s learning, and it widens opportunities and choice for parents. Unfortunately, as the motion states, there are accompanying dangers. Sadly, from time to time they involve the loss of young lives.
Already this winter two children have lost their lives when, according to the reports, alighting from school transport vehicles.
Two aspects of school transport vehicles have been mentioned by other Members: the provision of seatbelts and regulations such as the "3 for 2" seating rule. Both these received attention in the Committee for the Environment’s report, and I hope that work will continue.
We have to understand that the facts show that most fatalities around school transport occur when children are alighting from school buses, so areas where children are either boarding or alighting from school buses need particular attention. School buses include those provided by the boards, those provided by Translink and the privately owned buses that do school transport runs on contract from the education and library boards.
How recognisable are school transport vehicles, especially when children are boarding or alighting? I support strongly the idea of having better warning lights fitted on all school buses to improve the visibility of the vehicles and to draw the attention of passing motorists to the fact that children are boarding or alighting and are somewhere around the bus. In my constituency of Fermanagh and South Tyrone there was a fatality a couple of weeks before Christmas. A 14-year-old child had got off a bus, and it had moved on, but as she crossed the road to get to her home, an oncoming car hit the child. From the reports I understand that there was no fault with the school bus driver, with the operation of the bus or with the driver of the oncoming vehicle, who was unfortunately caught up in the accident. That is why we must think about how we warn passing motorists of the dangers to children around that time.
I also support a cross-departmental approach involving the Department for Regional Development, and, again, I call for the gritting of all school bus routes in winter. That would make an important contribution, as would the provision of parking areas where buses could pull in off a main road to allow children to get on and off. Although children get road safety education in schools, this is so important that the Department of Education should make sure that in the interest of their safety, children get specific education about personal safety and school transport.

Mrs Iris Robinson: One issue is sure to provoke the same degree of concern and frustration at the same time of the year, each year, and that is the overcrowding of school buses and the safety of pupils travelling by bus. Problems have risen at the start of every term over the past few years and continue to affect many school routes across the Province. Every September for the past five years we have had horror stories of over 100 children being squeezed onto school buses every morning and of pupils being bypassed because buses are overcrowded. Although there has not been a serious accident yet because of this, the potential for injury to passengers remains at an unwarranted high.
Unfortunately, the lives of many children have been claimed, and many serious injuries have been sustained as pupils have alighted from school buses. In almost every instance it has been impossible for the driver of the overtaking vehicle to take evasive action when pupils step out into their path.
One area of local life which the Assembly has the power to address and improve is the overcrowding of school buses. The reason for that is twofold. The main one is that legislation currently classifies 13-year-olds as children and allocates three such children to a double seat on school buses, but children of that age are just too big for that. To compound the problem, pupils have school bags, kitbags, hockey sticks and art folders with them, which often have to be set on the floor because of insufficient storage space, making it difficult for standing passengers. A change in the legislation is, therefore, essential to deal with the problem, as more buses are needed to carry children to and from school.
Therein lies the second problem: Translink will only provide the transport that the local education board pays for. In the past four years, lobbying has failed to make any progress on that matter, with the education boards claiming that no problem exists. It is inevitable that more transport will have to be provided, as it is only a matter of time before there is a serious accident. Translink representatives, although co-operative, say that they are only fulfilling their legislative obligations and that, as things stand, they cannot provide further transport or safety measures.
There is no excuse for packing buses full of schoolchildren and no reason for legislation’s not addressing children’s safety when alighting from school buses. I am gravely concerned about the safety of children using the school bus service, including those attending Glastry College, Comber High School and Regent House in my constituency. Their safety does not get sufficient priority and, again, it is only a matter of time before serious injuries are sustained.
I welcome the publication last September of the Committee for the Environment’s report into school transport. I am glad that the public inquiry found in favour of many of the proposals requested by interested groups and organisations. Most encouraging was the recommendation that serious consideration be given to the use of hazard lights on school buses. There is an argument that cars and other vehicles should be prevented from overtaking school buses that slow down and stop to allow children to alight, and that also display the new signage.
Another encouraging factor was the proposal to abolish the "3 for 2" seating arrangement, which stipulates that three young people should share a seat constructed for two adults. Children today are taller and bigger than children used to be, and they carry more equipment and coursework with them to school. It is too much to squeeze three children onto one double seat. I am glad that the Committee has called for the implementation of the one-seat-for-one-pupil policy and that legislation that permits children to stand on school buses is being phased out. All pupils should be entitled to a seat.
Other recommendations such as those that call for improved liaison between schools and service providers, misbehaviour and vandalism to be addressed, a reduction in the baggage carried by children on buses and the development of a new and enhanced road safety education programme are to be welcomed.

Mr Barry McElduff: Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. Everyone agrees that protecting schoolchildren as they travel to and from school on buses is hugely important. Sábháilteacht ár bpáistí agus iad ag taisteal ar scoil ag iad ag taisteal abhaile.
There is merit in the argument that the Executive should have taken action on this before now, and the recommendations of the Committee for the Environment should have been acted upon decisively. It is to be hoped that a more joined-up approach will be taken in future.
I welcome the presence of Mr Foster and Mr McGuinness. When matters within the remit of the Department for Regional Development arise, Mr P Robinson should be here also.
I support many of the recommendations contained in the Environment Committee’s report. It is legal for dozens of schoolchildren to stand in school buses, which not only puts them in danger but obscures the driver’s view when he checks his mirror. The provision of seat belts and illuminated school bus signs is important. The American model of good practice has been examined, and another model of good practice exists in Germany, where the emphasis is placed on information for car drivers, with motorists educated about the likely patterns of behaviour of schoolchildren in traffic.
Iris Robinson made a good point about the problem being worsened by the heavy school bags that children must carry. In India there are restrictions on the number and weight of bags that children should be expected to carry. If those limits are exceeded, the school is fined. The web site of the North Western Health Board in Donegal contains advice on school bag safety.
We are united in our hope, expectations and prayers for the safe journeys of schoolchildren. When they leave home in the morning, the last thing that anyone wants or expects is an accident. The subject is made pertinent by the recent death of Julie Meldrum in Fermanagh, which other Members mentioned.
I am aware of the time restrictions, but I will refer to the Department for Regional Development’s safer routes to school initiative. I welcome the western division of the Road Service’s provision of two lay-bys and attendant footways at Slevin’s Crossroads at Tattyreagh near Omagh. Those works are being completed on the main Omagh to Fintona road as a result of lobbying and a site meeting, which my Colleagues and I initiated about two years ago as part of the safer routes to school initiative. A near-fatal accident occurred there just over 10 years ago.
The development of the safer routes to school initiative by the Department for Regional Development is important, but the approach to the issue must be joined up. The statutory walking distance of two miles for primary schoolchildren and three miles for post-primary schoolchildren must be relaxed, and that is a particular problem in isolated rural areas. Last week, I lobbied for the provision of safe transport home for a post-primary school pupil who is dropped off in a forested rural area 2·8 miles from her home. She is expected to walk home between 4.00 pm and 5.00 pm in winter through a forested region. All those initiatives are important, as is a joined-up approach. Rumble strips should be added to roads. Flashing lights should be added to buses, and they could also be erected outside schools and timed to warn motorists when children are arriving at, or leaving, school.
I commend the motion and any action that concentrates the mind of the Ministers responsible for the matter. I wish Mr Foster all the best and congratulate him on the good work that he has done as Minister.

Mr Arthur Doherty: As a dedicated and slowly maturing Back-Bencher, I associate myself with Members’ tributes to Minister Sam Foster. He is a man of great experience, integrity and wisdom, and I know that he will continue to give excellent service, perhaps in a more relaxed fashion, to the Assembly and to his constituents.
I commend the Member for his motion. It takes account of the strong feelings expressed throughout the community that the safety of children travelling to and from school is a matter of the greatest importance.
It is also a confirmation of the importance of the exhaustive process of consultation on the subject by the Committee for the Environment. That resulted in the publication of the ‘Report on the Inquiry into Transport Used for Children Travelling to and from School’, which contains many recommendations aimed at maintaining a safer environment for our children.
I may be going over ground covered by the Chairperson. However, perhaps it is a good thing that, on this issue at least, we are singing from the same hymn sheet. The Committee’s report has been doing the rounds in the relevant Departments for some time. The Department for Regional Development, the Department of Education, and the Department for Employment and Learning have responded appropriately. Unfortunately the lead Department, the Department of the Environment, has not been so forthcoming. This is surprising, given the Minister’s undoubted and very strong commitment to road safety. However, feet are being dragged, perhaps because of the cost or the complexities of such long standing and neglect. A start must be made — and the sooner the better — before the tragedy that is "waiting to happen", happens.
I must refer to one departmental reaction to the last part of recommendation 1 in the report — the need to carry out a regulatory impact assessment
"to evaluate the potential costs and likely benefits of making changes".
That is a proper and inevitable step. It seems to me that the Department is reluctant to set things in motion because of the waves that might be created, either because certain recommendations would be considered essential but prohibitively expensive, or because the benefits would be too little to justify the expense.
With regard to the specifics of the motion, I suggest that the Executive have ready access to a great deal of the information that an investigation might discover. Much of what is needed is to be found in the Committee’s report — for example, in recommendations 8 and 9, which deal with effective school bus signs and warning lights. Recommendation 12 considers the possible benefits of a dedicated school bus system, like the American yellow buses. Recommendation 14 deals specifically with action to reduce the risks of boarding and alighting from school buses. No doubt there are additional or alternative actions that could be taken. However, those measures would be a good, affordable start.
Drivers have an awesome responsibility. They must appreciate, or be taught, the importance of self-restraint and patience. A car in motion is a terrifying weapon when it comes into contact with fragile flesh. Motorists must be made aware of the power that they have to kill, maim and cause distress and anguish to their neighbours. They must learn self-restraint and consideration in every situation, all the time. If they do that, everything else will be easy.

Mr Jim Shannon: I am surprised to see the motion being tabled, bearing in mind that the Committee for the Environment has supported some new measures yet, as other Members have said, its report has been sitting on the shelf gathering dust for a long time. The Committee saw the need to put preventative measures in place. However, no action has been taken to respond to that.
I support the motion because it deals with children’s safety, something that many Members have been involved with since their earliest days in politics. The issue is of particular importance and interest to me because at least two children in my constituency have been killed in the past few years while alighting from buses on their way to and from school. It is an issue that school boards of governors, of which many of us are members, are also concerned about. As the father of three young children, I am conscious of the need for child safety.
However, children are a law unto themselves, especially when they are not supervised or are in a crowd. When they mess about and try to impress among a crowd of their peers, they forget about the dangers that their parents constantly warn them about. Children do not always pay attention when they are fooling around. Unfortunately, when this behaviour is teamed with a bus and a busy road it can become a fatal combination. The bus driver is responsible for the children’s safety until they descend from the bus. However, there has never been an extra adult present to supervise the children as they get on and off the bus. Bearing in mind the exuberance of children, that seems to be the one truly preventative action that would help them be more obedient and well behaved when travelling to and from school.
I have no illusions that school buses are as chaotic and full of mischief as they were when most of us travelled on them. The driver of the bus has his or her work cut out just driving the bus, let alone trying to control the children or to see where they get to once they get off the bus. One way to remedy that is for another responsible adult to be on the bus to keep the peace and, more importantly, to supervise the children as they get on and, especially, off the bus. The obvious rebuttal to that is that it will cost money. With the education budget under strain, many will say that it cannot be done. However, what price is a child’s life?
Mr Kennedy mentioned the relevant American laws regarding school buses. I am in favour of many of those because in America buses deliver 75% to 80% of children to either school or home. The Department could look to the Community Transport Association to ascertain the initial cost of setting up such an operation. Something must be done to protect our children from accidents caused by misadventure.
School buses in America are fitted with four sets of lights. Strobe lights make drivers aware of the presence of a school bus, even in poor visibility. Buses also have loud horns, similar to those found on lorries and large vehicles, that sound when reversing. All those adjustments have been made purely to save lives, and have been effective. Something similar must be put in place in Northern Ireland.
One of the most innovative American laws is that traffic on both sides of the road must stop when a school bus is pulling in to let children on or off. That law alone would prevent children from being knocked down, and thus injured or killed, because all traffic on the street would come to a complete standstill.
The law lets a child enjoy his or her trip to and from school, but it does not prevent the odd lapse in concentration that has been fatal in the past. The problem with the law is that it works if there is a system of special school buses. In Northern Ireland, school buses are not specially identified. They must be altered to distinguish them from other buses.
The sentiment of the law is ideal, but its implementation will require not only buses being identified as such, but police officers keeping those who flout the law from harming children. However, the police do not have sufficient numbers to patrol the streets of Northern Ireland let alone enforce new laws that will benefit our children and keep them safe. More police officers should be available in the Province to educate schoolchildren in road safety. The Belfast Agreement has reduced the number of police officers, and there are very few left to give our children those life-saving talks.
Something is needed to keep our children safe. We must talk to American schools and learn how their children have benefited from the new measures that were put in place to protect them from being killed when going to and from school by bus. We must investigate what has been done in Australia, France and other European countries. We must investigate the best way to safeguard our children because, as we all agreed, something must be done. We cannot afford to have another child injured or killed.

Mr Sammy Wilson: First, I will make two observations. The House will note the irony that it took a member of the Ulster Unionist Party to drag the Minister here to talk about some of the issues that the Environment Committee had been trying to get him to talk about for, apparently, four or five months.
Secondly, it is nice to hear that members of Sinn Féin, according to Gerry McHugh, now believe that there is nothing more important than the lives of children. I am sure that many families have wished over the past 30 years that that lesson had been learnt a long time ago.
I want to ask a couple of questions about some of the issues that have been raised. We must put the issue of school transport in context. Mr Gallagher said that, every day, there are over 110,000 journeys to and from school. Over a school year, that works out as 36 million journeys. Danny Kennedy said that there are 300 accidents per year. That puts the degree of safety with which children are delivered to school in context. All those who are involved should be congratulated.
Several issues have been raised today. Some of them require minor changes to be made to bus stops; others require extensive expenditure. For example, several Members referred to the seat belt issue. To fit seat belts in all buses would require the purchase of many extra buses. The capital costs of that would be about £125 million, and the additional running costs, which would be paid to the education and library boards, would be another £40 million. Put in context with the £46 million that is currently spent on school transport, it amounts to an increase of 100% each year. Although I agree that we must ensure that youngsters are delivered to school safely, it would have been useful if Members who spoke about that measure had suggested what proportion of the Budget they would use to facilitate it.
We must bear in mind that to put seat belts in buses does not guarantee that youngsters will use them. Should extra staff be employed? Should teachers travel on buses to ensure that seat belts are worn? Some of the proposals that have been suggested raise as many questions as they provide solutions.
It has been mentioned that when a bus stops to allow children to alight, traffic coming from the rear and the front should be stopped. We do not have dedicated school buses. It is often impossible to tell whether a bus is carrying ordinary passengers or youngsters. The buses could be fitted with lights. However, given the location of many bus stops, does that mean that drivers, who may be travelling at 30mph or 40mph should realise that there is a school bus ahead, and stop and wait until it moves off? Some investigation must be done into the road safety issue of cars suddenly stopping in the middle of a road. That is what often leads to accidents in which cars ram into other cars.
Another suggestion was that people could be employed to supervise at bus stops. That is an admirable idea, but have the resource implications been considered? To introduce a no-standing policy on school buses would cost £22 million to provide the necessary additional buses.
I would have liked to have heard some ways in which those issues could be resolved. Perhaps there will be some answers in the winding-up speeches.

Mr Sam Foster: I thank the mover of the motion. It is interesting to hear what has been said on those important issues. This appears to be my swansong as a Minister. I am disappointed by the absence of a piper to play ‘Farewell to the Creeks’ as I leave.

Mr Sammy Wilson: We could arrange that.

Mr Sam Foster: Could you, Mr Wilson? Thank you very much indeed.
I have been honoured and privileged to serve the Assembly. I thank all concerned for their help, co- operation, kindness and courtesy during my time as Minister. I wish my successor every success in his new role.
I have always been a believer in the old maxim, "moderation in all things". Even in our belief that our individual wisdom is the way in which the world should perform, it is sometimes lax in the reactions of those whose task it is in life to offer instant opinions on all things great and small. No section of the community has all the virtues or all the vices. Most people try to do their jobs as best they can, even if they are not always successful. He who has never failed to reach perfection has the right to be the harshest critic. However, criticism is good for people in public institutions. In a democracy, no institution can expect to be free from that.
No one has a monopoly on care and wisdom. I am a father, a grandfather and a former professional childcare worker. I am aware of the need for love, care and protection of the person and property, and so too are the staff in the Department of the Environment. The Department’s staff have a role to perform, and they are aware of that when they appear before Committees. It would be helpful if Committee members spoke with departmental staff rather than at them when they appear before Committees to answer questions.
I listened with great interest to Members’ contributions. All right-minded people share their desire to reduce the number of deaths and serious injuries on our roads. I have devoted much of my efforts as a Minister to pursuing this objective and have made road safety my top priority. I am spurred on by the knowledge that nearly all deaths and injuries on the roads are avoidable. Most are the result of human error, such as carelessness, inattention, excessive speed, alcohol consumption, by pedestrians and drivers, and the failure to wear seat belts.
The avoidable death or injury of a child is particularly tragic. I speak for all Ministers, especially the three Ministers with responsibility for road safety and school transport, when I say that we will continue to do what we can to improve our Departments’ response.
The Assembly will appreciate that my departmental responsibilities are confined to overall co-ordination of the road safety strategy, road safety education and publicity, and vehicle and driving standards. The Department of Education is responsible for policy on school transport provision, and the Department for Regional Development is responsible for road traffic regulations governing the operation of school buses and other traffic. In the context of that division of responsibility, I will read extracts from the responses of the Department of Education and the Department for Regional Development to the Committee for the Environment’s school transport report as set out in the composite response that I sent to the Chairperson of the Committee yesterday. It is a response to the recommendation for the provision of a dedicated and segregated school bus system, similar to the yellow bus system in the United States
"In DE’s view this is, in effect, a recommendation that pupils should be transported on a contracted and/or ELB service which should also be available to non-entitled pupils. There would have to be a two tier system with paying and non-paying passengers. There would also be implications for the public transport system as many of the Translink bus routes serve both the public and pupils and it would go against the concept of an integrated transport strategy.
"The Department of Transport, Local Government and the Regions in Great Britain recently announced a number of pilot schemes to test the effectiveness of these yellow buses. Pilot trials have been delayed while the manufacturers revise the design to accommodate European requirements. It is hoped that the trial will now proceed in the early part of 2002. While the Department will discuss with DRD the merits of undertaking pilot schemes here, it would seem more appropriate in the DE’s view to await the outcome of the trials in England before pursuing this recommendation."
The Department for Regional Development’s response was as follows:
"DRD is concerned that the establishment of a segregated school bus system would have a serious adverse impact on the viability of considerable parts of the stage carriage network, particularly in rural areas. It is likely that the loss of patronage from school children would reduce fare income on many services to such an extent that Translink would have no option but to withdraw such services. This would be a serious blow to DRD’s objective of promoting the use of public transport. Because of this and also due to lack of resources, DRD is not prepared to pilot the use of Yellow Buses."
As regards the proposal for several pilot schemes to assess the impact of preventing vehicles from overtaking school buses when children are boarding and alighting, Mr Kennedy has already acknowledged that the Environment Committee’s school transport report recommended that research be carried out.
In response to the Committee, the Department for Regional Development stated:
"Research into the potential for new legislation in this area is the responsibility of DRD Roads Service transportation unit to investigate. DRD will examine the issue, discuss with the DTLR and report back to the Committee on its findings."
I now turn to the issue of child road safety. First, I thank the Member for his kind remarks when opening the debate. I have sought to do what I can within the programmes for which I have responsibility, and I appreciate the sentiments that have been expressed by many Members about my efforts on road safety issues.
Although Northern Ireland does not have the type of dedicated and segregated school bus system that is used in the USA, it is nevertheless reassuring that the safety record of buses and coaches in Northern Ireland is good. In the four years from April 1997 to March 2001, 131 children, aged between four and 15, were killed or seriously injured on Northern Ireland’s roads while travelling to or from school. Six of the children killed and 93 of those seriously injured were pedestrians. One of those killed and 18 of those seriously injured were car passengers. Six of the children seriously injured, but none of those killed, were bus, coach or minibus passengers. Buses are, therefore, a relatively safe form of transport for children, compared to travelling on foot or by car, and that is further supported by the fact that more children travel to school by bus than by car.
However, I must emphasise that although the number of children killed or seriously injured as pedestrians in the vicinity of buses is not separately identified in police statistics, road safety practitioners, schools educational authorities, parents, police and all involved in road safety widely recognise such areas as being danger zones. Child behaviour in and around bus stops when going to and coming from school is widely accepted as requiring attention from all road safety authorities.
A key area in addressing that problem is road safety education in schools, and I will outline what my Department currently does in that field and our plans for new initiatives. The Assembly is already aware of the additional resources that I was able to secure in the 2001-02 Budget to increase the number of road safety education officers from 11 to 21 from last May. Those officers provide valuable support for schools through the annual provision of over £650,000 worth of road safety teaching materials suitable for different age groups. Among those materials is the road safety teaching aid calendar that is provided to every nursery and primary school classroom in Northern Ireland. The calendars are used as a classroom teaching aid throughout the school year, and they feature guidance on behaviour when travelling to school by bus and advice on how to cross the road after getting off the bus.
The increase in the number of road safety education officers will allow the introduction, from October, of practical child pedestrian training in support of classroom training at various primary schools, mainly in areas of social deprivation. Research indicates that children from deprived areas are more likely to be involved in a traffic collision than other children.
Although the work of the road safety education officers is being targeted particularly at schools in those areas, my Department has an overall objective of ensuring that every school in Northern Ireland is visited at least twice a year. In 2002-03 it is expected that officers will make over 4,000 school visits.
Other work by road safety education officers that is relevant to child road safety includes: cycling proficiency programmes in schools, which train 10,000 children each year; working with post-primary schools to deliver courses on road traffic studies — approximately 160 post-primary schools offer formal traffic studies as a timetable subject, with 71 schools offering the courses as a GCSE subject known as motor vehicle and road user studies; organising visits by theatre groups to schools as part of a road safety education programme; and working with older pupils to encourage more responsible attitudes to their behaviour as road users as they reach driving age.
My Department’s publicity campaigns, targeting the major causes of road casualties — excessive speed, alcohol consumption by both drivers and pedestrians, and failure to wear seat belts, are also relevant to child road safety, including the home-to-school journey.
Included in my Department’s initial response to the Committee for the Environment’s report on school transport is a commitment to consider further how to increase children’s awareness of the dangers that they face when travelling to and from schools — as pedestrians and when boarding, or alighting from, school buses. Equally importantly, my officials are also considering ways of increasing drivers’ awareness of the danger that they pose to child pedestrians, especially in the vicinity of school buses.
In developing these proposals, we will be working closely with the Department for Regional Development in the context of its safer routes to school policy, and with the Police Service of Northern Ireland.
My Department is also working with the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety on a major new proposal, using part of my allocations for 2002-03 and 2003-04 from the Executive’s new directions fund. For the first time in Northern Ireland this will involve the introduction of a children’s traffic club. Similar clubs have been very successful in Great Britain.
The children’s traffic club provides the parents of every three-year-old with six free road safety books, at three-monthly intervals, as part of a structured and tailored introduction to road safety for parents and young children. All this documentation will integrate with information they will receive later at playgroup and primary school.
It is my objective that, through these interventions, children and other vulnerable road users will be made more alert to the dangers they face on the road, and that drivers and riders will associate buses with a critical danger area for children and adjust their driving accordingly.
I now turn to the Environment Committee’s inquiry into school transport. I read some of the coverage of what was said to my officials when they gave a presentation to the Committee last week, and I am glad to have this opportunity, on the Floor of the Assembly, to refute some of that criticism. It is true that the Committee has only now received a formal response from my Department. This was due in part to a desire to be helpful to the Committee by producing a composite response. We wanted to collate the views of all those interested in the report, including the Department of Education and the education and library boards, as well as the Department for Regional Development and Translink, rather than send a piecemeal response. Clearly I now have to wonder if that effort was misplaced.
Moreover, it would not be true to suggest that there has been no dialogue with the Committee since the report’s publication in September 2001. The report’s four key recommendations on "3 for 2" seating, standing, seat belts, and signage and new lights have significant public expenditure implications, which have been mentioned. Expenditure could amount to over £180 million in capital costs, and over £60 million per year thereafter in recurrent costs.
I wrote to Dr McCrea in October 2001 to remind him of these implications and the potential impact on the nature of public transport provision. I wrote to Dr McCrea again in December 2001, seeking the Committee’s view on the extent to which there was objective evidence from its investigations that road safety benefits commensurate with those additional costs are likely to be available. There has been nothing but silence since. I also asked from which Executive budgets the millions of pounds needed to implement the Committee’s recommendations might be taken — perhaps health, housing, or education? Nothing but silence again.
This brings me to a serious point about the nature of public office. It is clear that many who spent the years of direct rule championing every populist cause that came along have found it difficult to adjust to the realities and responsibilities of devolution. Emotive slogans about the value of a child’s life, or about disasters waiting to happen, are not a basis for good policy or responsible decision-making. We all, Executive Ministers no less than others, treat child road safety with the utmost seriousness. To suggest otherwise is deeply offensive. While I know that one cannot put a price on the life of a child, and I speak as a parent and grandparent, as a Minister who has to operate as part of an Executive with a finite budget —

Mr Donovan McClelland: Minister, I must advise you that you have less than a minute left.

Mr Sam Foster: Can you give me some allowance with this being my last speech of the evening? A couple of minutes will be enough for me to finish.

Mr Donovan McClelland: There were problems on the last occasion that I showed some latitude in the House. I cannot set a precedent.

Mr Sam Foster: You have lost your compassion, Mr Deputy Speaker.
This is the last time I shall address the Assembly as Minister of the Environment, and it is fitting that the topic on this occasion has been road safety. During my time in office I have made this my top priority. I have been saddened by every death and serious injury that has occurred. I have worked to obtain additional resources in this vital area and to support the work of other Departments and the police in their road safety efforts. I hope that the additional effort we have been able to put in on education, public awareness, and generally raising the public profile of road safety, will result in long-term dividends in reducing the death and injury on our roads.
I end by thanking all in the Executive and in the Chamber who have supported me in these efforts — even those who have sought to spur me on with barbed remarks. I wish my successor well in the task that lies ahead — not just on road safety but on the whole challenge of the Department of the Environment portfolio. I look forward to supporting him from the Back Benches.

Mr Danny Kennedy: We have had a useful exchange of views, and I place on record my thanks to all the Members who have contributed. I thank the Minister of the Environment for his presence, and I also acknowledge the presence of the Minister of Education.
What we have heard will, and can, be the basis for early progress on this important matter. I hope that will be so. It was my objective in bringing the motion to the House. Many Members made important points in their contributions. Dr McCrea, as Chairperson of the Committee for the Environment, said that his Committee’s report had made several key recommendations and that it can be the basis from which to move forward. It would have been helpful if he had presented his report on behalf of his Committee to the Assembly earlier for wider debate. That possibility remains, and I hope that he will consider that to be appropriate.
I was grateful to Patricia Lewsley, who referred to the loss of a child and to the fact that that cannot and ought not to be calculated in monetary terms. Likewise, we must acknowledge that there are measures that cost comparatively little which could be implemented at an early stage. Indeed, Mr McHugh referred to lights that can be attached to school buses and vehicles.
I was heartened by the support from Mr McCarthy and the Portaferry Women’s Institute, of which presumably he is not a member, though it is obvious that he takes on board their sensible views on this. Jane Morrice made the important point that saving lives is what we should be about. She also pointed out the cross-cutting nature of this and how it affects the work of the Department of the Environment, The Department of Education and The Department for Regional Development. Mr Gallagher rightly said that it is most dangerous when pupils are alighting from school buses, and statistics and research in America bear that out. Iris Robinson highlighted the overcrowding of school buses, and as the Chairperson of the Committee for Education and a local representative I am very aware of that. Constituency representatives are concerned about how best to address that problem urgently and effectively.
Mr McElduff welcomed the consensus on the safety of schoolchildren and referred to other models of good practice in places such as Germany. It might be important to engage in research to see if we can make and improve sensible recommendations. Arthur Doherty, with his customary modesty, misplaced I must say, welcomed the motion. He was very much singing from the same hymn sheet as Dr McCrea, and that was an interesting duet. Mr Shannon rightly paid tribute to the school bus drivers. It was never my intention to criticise school bus drivers. We all know the contribution that they make to the safe passage of children.
Mr S Wilson, with his customary and legendary style, rather overestimated even my ability to drag a ministerial Colleague, or a party Colleague, to the Assembly to chastise him in some way. However, he helped tease out many important issues in this debate — the cost issues and some of the practical outworking. That was an important contribution. We will be wise to look carefully at all the proposals. By all means, we should study the other models of good practice, whether in America or in other parts of Europe, but we would be wise to look closely at the practical outworking of that.
The Minister gave us a detailed response. I thank him for that and for his commitment shown and proved to road safety issues during his stewardship of his Department. He will have a continuing interest in that.
I am heartened by the collective view of Assembly Members that, between the Executive Departments that have some responsibility in this, progress can be made, proposals can be formed and legislation can be brought forward soon to improve and further enhance the safety of the children who attend our schools. I am grateful to all those who participated and thank them for their excellent contributions.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved:
That this Assembly notes the number of children who have been killed getting on and alighting from school buses by motorists. It calls on the Executive to conduct urgently an investigation into measures to safeguard the welfare of our children when using school buses, taking into account the relevant laws introduced in the United States.
Adjourned at 6.12 pm.